In Re Alfred Lee Rice Jr. v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed February 12, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-25-00269-CR
__________

IN RE ALFRED LEE RICE JR.

Original Mandamus Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Alfred Lee Rice Jr., has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus
in this court requesting that we compel the assigned judge of the 441st District Court
of Midland County, Texas—the convicting court—to rule on his pending motion for
judgment nunc pro tunc.
Between October 2024 and June 2025, Relator, who is incarcerated, sent by
certified mail three identical motions for judgment nunc pro tunc to the Midland
County District Clerk’s Office, which were to be filed and submitted to the trial
court. By his motions, Relator sought to correct a clerical error in each of his 2019
judgments of conviction for sexual assault of a child. See Rice v. State, No. 11-19-
00314-CR, 2021 WL 3923274, at *4 (Tex. App.—Eastland Sept. 2, 2021, no pet.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming Relator’s convictions). Relator
contended that he pled “not true” to the State’s enhancement allegations when the
judgments reflect that he pled “true.” The trial court did not rule on Relator’s first
motion filed in October 2024. Relator filed his second motion in February 2025.
Months elapsed with no ruling or other response. Relator filed a third motion in
June 2025. After his motions were still pending by August 2025, Relator filed a
letter in which he again requested a ruling.
When this mandamus proceeding was filed and docketed on September 22,
2025, we requested a response from the State. The Honorable James M. Rush was
assigned to this case on December 22, 2025, and we provided him with the
opportunity to respond after his assignment. To date, neither party has responded.
On September 10, 2025, prior to Relator filing his petition for writ of
mandamus, he filed a notice of appeal in this court, which was docketed under
appellate cause no. 11-25-00260-CR. While we must dismiss his direct appeal for
want of jurisdiction as detailed in the opinion for that cause, we conclude that it is
necessary to conditionally grant his petition for writ of mandamus in this cause
because of the trial court’s failure to rule on his motions within a reasonable time.
See Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (per curiam)
(“If the trial court denies the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or fails to respond,
relief may be sought by filing a[] [petition] for writ of mandamus in a court of
appeals.”).
To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) that he has no
adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief he seeks, and (2) that he has a clear
right to the relief he seeks. In re Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494–95 (Tex. Crim. App.
2017); see also In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex.

2
2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding). When the relief sought involves an act of a court, the relator must
demonstrate that the act is ministerial, rather than judicial. Powell, 516 S.W.3d at
495. A trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on a properly filed motion within a
reasonable time after the motion has been submitted to it. In re Ramos, 598 S.W.3d
472, 473 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). Thereafter, if
the trial court fails to rule, mandamus will issue to compel the trial court to enter a
ruling on the motion. Id.; see also In re Ortiz, No. 11-22-00103-CR, 2022
WL 1497512, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland May 12, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem.
op., not designated for publication).
Whether a reasonable time has elapsed depends on the circumstances of each
case. Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 134–35 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig.
proceeding). “[N]o bright-line demarcates the boundaries of a reasonable time
period.” Id. at 135. A reasonable time to rule depends upon “a myriad of criteria,”
such as the trial court’s actual knowledge of the motions, its overt refusal to act, the
state of the court’s docket, and whether any other matters which must be addressed
first exist. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228–29 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig.
proceeding).
Here, under the circumstances, Relator’s motions and repeated requests for a
ruling have gone unanswered for an unreasonable amount of time. We acknowledge
that simply filing a motion does not necessarily show that the trial court had
knowledge thereof. See, e.g., In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 74 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding) (“Merely filing a motion with a court clerk does
not show that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention for a ruling
because the clerk’s knowledge is not imputed to the trial court.”). However, the trial
court has before it several filings in addition to a notification from the clerk of this

3
court that ruling on the motion would render the petition before us moot. Relator
has therefore satisfied his burden to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief.
Ortiz, 2022 WL 1497512, at *1.
Accordingly, we conditionally grant Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
Judge Rush is respectfully directed to enter a ruling on Relator’s Motion For Nunc
Pro Tunc Order. A writ of mandamus will issue only if Judge Rush fails to enter a
ruling by March 16, 2026. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(c).

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

February 12, 2026
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

4