Narrative Opinion Summary
David Schlittler filed a petition for writ of mandamus, challenging the Respondent's failure to rule on his motion to appoint counsel, submitted around February 16, 2021. He provided un-file marked copies of various letters sent to the District Clerk and Respondent, requesting action on his motion under Article 1.051(d)(3) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The court stated that a trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on a properly filed motion within a reasonable time but clarified that the relator must show the motion was brought to the court's attention. Schlittler's assertions were insufficient, as he did not provide evidence that the trial court received his letters or that his motion was presented for ruling. His failure to include a docket sheet or proof of non-ruling resulted in the denial of his petition for mandamus relief. Consequently, all pending motions were deemed moot, and the petition was denied on September 15, 2021.
Legal Issues Addressed
Duty to Rule on Filed Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reaffirmed that a trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on a properly filed motion within a reasonable time, but noted that the relator must demonstrate that the motion was brought to the court's attention.
Reasoning: The court stated that a trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on a properly filed motion within a reasonable time but clarified that the relator must show the motion was brought to the court's attention.
Mandamus Relief Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied Schlittler's petition for writ of mandamus due to his inability to demonstrate that his motion was presented to the trial court for a ruling.
Reasoning: His failure to include a docket sheet or proof of non-ruling resulted in the denial of his petition for mandamus relief.
Proof of Court's Awareness of Motionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In this case, Schlittler failed to provide sufficient evidence that the trial court was aware of his motion, such as a docket sheet or proof of non-ruling, leading to the denial of his petition for mandamus relief.
Reasoning: Schlittler's assertions were insufficient, as he did not provide evidence that the trial court received his letters or that his motion was presented for ruling.