Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
in Re: David Schlittler
Citation: Not availableDocket: 12-17-00275-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; April 4, 2018; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
David Schlittler filed an original proceeding pro se, challenging the Respondent's inaction on his motion for appointment of habeas corpus counsel. The court denied his request for a writ of mandamus, outlining the prerequisites for such relief: the relator must demonstrate an inadequate legal remedy and that the act sought is ministerial. The court reiterated that to compel a trial court to act, the relator must show a legal duty to perform a nondiscretionary act, that the act was requested, and that the court failed to comply. The court emphasized that a trial court is not obliged to consider a motion unless it has been brought to its attention. Schlittler claimed to have mailed his motion and cover letter to the District Clerk, requesting that it be filed and presented to the court. He submitted several letters as evidence of his attempts to prompt action on his motion, including requests for hearings. However, the court noted that Schlittler's motion was not file-stamped, and there was no evidence, such as a docket sheet, to confirm whether the motion had been filed or whether the trial court had ruled on it. Consequently, his failure to provide sufficient evidence led to the denial of his mandamus relief. The letters dated November 29, December 19, and January 5 sent to the Anderson County District Clerk are inadequate to demonstrate that Relator's motion was brought to Respondent's attention. Citing In re Blakeney, the court emphasized that a trial court is not obligated to consider a motion if it has not been specifically called to its attention, and merely filing a motion with the clerk does not suffice to prove that it was presented to the trial court for a ruling. Additionally, a letter addressed to a different judge does not establish that Respondent was made aware of the motion. The letters from Relator dated April 4 and June 19 lack file stamps or certification, and there is no evidence of their receipt by Respondent. Previous cases, such as Creag and In re Taylor, reaffirm that without proper evidence of receipt, the trial court cannot be assumed to have been informed or asked to rule on the pleadings. Consequently, Relator failed to demonstrate that his motion was brought to the attention of Respondent, thus lacking entitlement to mandamus relief. As a result, Relator's petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. The opinion was delivered on April 4, 2018, by a panel including Chief Justice Worthen, Justice Hoyle, and Justice Neeley.