Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina, 13-26-00129-CR, February 06, 2026.
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus because the relator failed to provide an evidentiary record demonstrating that the trial court was actually aware of the pending motion or had been specifically asked to rule. The Court reaffirmed that the ministerial duty to rule on a motion is only triggered once the trial court has received the motion, is made aware of it, and is requested to act—filing with the clerk alone does not satisfy these requirements.
Relevance to Family Law
In the environment of Texas family law, practitioners frequently face “judicial pocketing,” where a motion for temporary orders, a motion to compel discovery, or a request for a custody modification sits indefinitely without a ruling. This case serves as a critical reminder that e-filing a motion is merely the first step. For a family law litigator to successfully maintain a mandamus action for a failure to rule, they must bridge the gap between the clerk’s electronic file and the judge’s desk. Without a documented request for a hearing or a formal letter to the court coordinator brought into the appellate record, any attempt to seek extraordinary relief will be summarily denied for lack of a shown ministerial duty.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Jose Raquel Lerma filed a “Notice of Place of Imprisonment and Speedy Trial Demand” across four trial court cause numbers in the County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County. Despite the filings, the trial court did not issue a ruling. Lerma subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, asserting that the trial court had failed to timely rule on his demands. However, the record submitted to the Court of Appeals did not contain evidence that the trial court had been personally notified of the filings or that the Relator had made a specific request to the judge to take action on the motions.
Issues Decided
The Court addressed whether a relator establishes a trial court’s ministerial duty to rule for mandamus purposes by the mere act of filing a motion with the clerk, and whether the passage of time without a ruling constitutes a refusal to act when no specific request for a ruling was documented.
Rules Applied
The Court applied the standard for mandamus relief, requiring the relator to show both a ministerial duty and the lack of an adequate remedy at law. In the context of a failure to rule, the Court applied a three-prong test: (1) the trial court had a legal duty to rule; (2) the court was asked to rule; and (3) the court failed or refused to rule within a reasonable time. Crucially, the Court cited In re Pete and In re Blakeney to support the rule that filing a document with the clerk does not impute knowledge to the trial court nor does it equate to a request for a ruling.
Application
The Court’s application of the law turned entirely on the inadequacy of the relator’s record. While a trial court has a ministerial duty to rule within a reasonable time, that duty is not “activated” until the court is made aware of the motion and asked to rule. The Court noted that even though the relator was pro se, he was required to provide a record that established these prerequisites. Because the relator’s evidence only showed that the motions were filed—and not that they were presented to the judge—the Court could not find that a reasonable time for ruling had even begun to run, let alone expired.
Holding
The Court held that the relator failed to meet his burden to obtain mandamus relief. The Court reiterated that the trial court cannot be said to have abused its discretion or failed in a ministerial duty if the record does not show the court was aware of the motion.
The Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus in all four cause numbers. The holding emphasizes that the “reasonable time” analysis is fact-dependent but cannot begin without proof of the trial court’s actual knowledge of the motion.
Practical Application
For family law practitioners, this case highlights the necessity of “perfecting” the record for mandamus long before the petition is drafted. If a trial court has not ruled on a motion for enforcement or a motion for clarification, counsel must do more than check the e-filing status. You must create a “paper trail” that includes correspondence to the court coordinator and, ideally, a “Request for Ruling” filed in the case. If the court coordinator ignores emails, a formal notice of a hearing request should be filed to ensure the appellate court sees that the trial judge was specifically asked to act.
Checklists
Establishing Judicial Knowledge for Mandamus
- Confirm the motion was accepted by the clerk’s office.
- Draft a formal letter to the trial judge’s coordinator requesting a ruling or a hearing date.
- Attach a copy of the previously filed motion to that correspondence.
- File the correspondence with the clerk to ensure it appears in the Clerk’s Record.
- If the court maintains a specific “drop box” or “submission” procedure, strictly adhere to it and document the compliance.
Creating the Appellate Record (TRAP 52.7)
- Include a certified or sworn copy of the motion in the Mandamus Appendix.
- Include copies of all correspondence to the court coordinator.
- Include a “Request for Ruling” or a “Motion to Set” that has a file-stamp.
- Provide an affidavit from counsel or staff detailing the dates and times of telephonic inquiries made to the court regarding the pending motion.
Citation
In re Jose Raquel Lerma, Nos. 13-26-00129-CR, 13-26-00130-CR, 13-26-00131-CR, 13-26-00132-CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Feb. 6, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling is a powerful defensive tool in divorce and custody litigation. If an opposing party files a mandamus to compel a ruling on a motion—such as a motion to disqualify counsel or a motion for a social study—you can neutralize the petition by demonstrating that the relator never formally requested a ruling on the record. Even if the motion has been pending for months, the “Knowledge Gap” prevents the appellate court from granting relief. Strategically, if you represent the party opposing a motion, you are under no obligation to bring it to the court’s attention; the burden sits entirely with the movant to ensure the judge sees it. This case confirms that “constructive notice” via the clerk’s file is a legal fiction in the context of mandamus.
~~ead29d3e-035f-460f-9134-f362905f839b~~
Share this content: