In Re Jose Raquel Lerma v. the State of Texas

NUMBERS 13-26-00129-CR, 13-26-00130-CR,
13-26-00131-CR, 13-26-00132-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE JOSE RAQUEL LERMA

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Peña and West
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina1

Relator Jose Raquel Lerma has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus arising

from trial court cause numbers CR-20-11178-D, CR-20-11179-D, CR-1229-21-L, and

CR-1242-21-L in County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County, Texas, and docketed

respectively in our appellate cause numbers 13-26-00129-CR, 13-26-00130-CR, 13-26-

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
00131-CR, and 13-26-00132-CR. Relator asserts that the trial court has failed to timely

rule on his “Notice of Place of Imprisonment and Speedy Trial Demand.” We address

relator’s complaints in this single memorandum opinion in the interests of judicial

efficiency and economy.

In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish

both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary

or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged

harm. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding);

In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam);

In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the

relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be

denied. See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d

207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). It is the relator’s burden to properly

request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. See id.; In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837,

839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State,

832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)

(“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the

extraordinary relief he seeks.”); see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7.

“If a party properly files a motion with the trial court in a criminal case, the court

has a ministerial duty to rule on the motion within a reasonable time after the motion has

been submitted to the court for a ruling or after the party has requested a ruling.” In re

Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). A

2
relator seeking relief for the failure to rule must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal

duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused

to rule on the motion within a reasonable time. In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320, 321 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d

106, 106–07 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The

relator must show that the trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule on

the motion. In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig.

proceeding); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig.

proceeding). Merely filing a document with the district clerk neither imputes the clerk’s

knowledge of the filing to the trial court nor equates to a request that the trial court rule

on the motion. In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d at 322; In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d at 107. Whether a

reasonable period has elapsed is dependent on the circumstances of each case. In re

Black, 640 S.W.3d 894, 897 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2022, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the limited record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not

met his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus in

each of these cause numbers.

JAIME TIJERINA
Chief Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the
6th day of February, 2026.

3