In Re Matthew Flowers, Relator v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00182-CR

IN RE MATTHEW FLOWERS, RELATOR

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

July 28, 2025
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Relator Matthew Lee Flowers has filed his petition for writ of mandamus in which

he requests that this Court direct respondent, the Honorable Steven Emmert, presiding

judge of the 31st District Court of Lipscomb County, “to rule on motions for appointment

of counsel and hearing on finding of DNA evidence.” Flowers filed those motions in his

pro se capacity. We deny his petition.

On July 10, 2025, Judge Emmert appointed counsel for relator, effectively granting

relator’s motion for appointment of counsel. So, the portion of relator’s petition requesting

such relief has hereby been rendered moot. See In re Jackson, No. 07-19-00054-CV,

2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 1423, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 26, 2019, orig. proceeding)

(per curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing petition for mandamus as moot when “[t]he trial court

has provided relator the relief he sought in this mandamus proceeding”); see also In re
Bailey, No. 14-25-00389-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3780, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] June 3, 2025, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (“A petition for a writ

of mandamus for failure to rule is dismissed as moot when the trial court rules after the

petition for writ of mandamus is filed.”). We, therefore, deny this portion of relator’s

petition.

Additionally, the effect of the order granting relator’s motion is that relator is now

represented by counsel. That being so, Judge Emmert has no ministerial duty to act on

Flowers’ remaining pro se motion. That is, the trial court now may disregard relator’s pro

se filings for it no longer has a ministerial duty to rule on them. See In re Welsh, No. 07-

21-00187-CR, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 8435, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 19, 2021,

orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.); see also In re Bledsoe, No. 06-14-00113-CR,

2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 7878, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana July 23, 2014, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying similar mandamus relief because relator, represented

by appointed counsel, had no right to hybrid representation). And, the trial court’s lacking

a ministerial duty to act pretermits our authority to issue a writ of mandamus directing it

to act. See In re Welsh, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 8435, at *2 (stating that a relator must

show that the act to be compelled is ministerial to secure a writ of mandamus.)

Because one matter raised in relator’s petition is moot and because he has not

shown himself entitled to relief on the remaining matter, we deny relator’s petition for writ

of mandamus.

Brian Quinn
Chief Justice

Do not publish.

2