In Re Mark Honsaker v. the State of Texas

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied, and Memorandum Majority and
Dissenting Opinions filed June 4, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00182-CR

IN RE MARK HONSAKER, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
405th District Court
Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 23-CR-3047

MEMORANDUM MAJORITY OPINION

On Tuesday, March 12, 2024, relator Mark Honsaker filed a petition for writ
of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R.
App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Jared
Robinson, presiding judge of the 405th District Court of Galveston County, to
rule on six motions filed with the court.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) that the relator
has no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief the relator seeks; and
(2) what the relator seeks to compel involves a ministerial act rather than a
discretionary act. In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding) (quoting Powell v. Hocker, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494–95
(Tex. Crim. App. 2017). If a party properly files a motion with a trial court, the
trial 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
requested a ruling. In re Ramos, 598 S.W.3d 472, 473 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Flanigan, 578 S.W.3d 634, 635–36
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding)). Thereafter, if a trial
court fails to rule, mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. Ramos,
598 S.W.3d at 473.

As the party seeking relief, it is relator’s burden to provide a sufficient
record to establish that relator is entitled to mandamus relief. Gomez, 602 S.W.3d
at 73. For mandamus relief to be granted, the record must show (1) the motion was
filed and brought to the attention of the respondent-judge for a ruling, and (2) the
respondent-judge has not ruled on the motion within a reasonable time after the
motion has been submitted to the court for a ruling or after the party requested a
ruling. See id. In a criminal mandamus proceeding, to establish that a motion was
filed, a relator must provide the appellate court with either a file-stamped copy of
the motion or other proof that the motion is, in fact, filed and pending in the trial
court. Id. at 74 (citing Flanigan, 578 S.W.3d at 636); In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d
381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding).

2
Here, relator failed to attach file-stamped copies of the motions or any other
proof that the motions in fact were filed and are pending before the trial court. See
Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 73–74. As such, relator has not met his burden of providing
this court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See id.

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief.
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan (J. Spain dissenting).
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

3