Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina, 13-26-00132-CR, February 06, 2026.
On appeal from Unknown
Synopsis
Mandamus relief is unavailable to a party complaining of a trial court’s failure to rule on a motion unless the relator establishes that the court had a ministerial duty to rule, was explicitly asked to rule, and failed to do so within a reasonable time. Crucially, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals clarifies that merely filing a document with the district clerk does not impute knowledge of the filing to the trial court, nor does it satisfy the requirement that the judge be made aware of the request for action.
Relevance to Family Law
In the arena of Texas family law, “judicial pocket-vetoes” on motions for temporary orders, drug testing, or enforcement can paralyze a client’s position. This ruling serves as a stark reminder that an e-filing timestamp is not a substitute for active advocacy. To preserve an issue for mandamus when a trial judge fails to sign an order or rule on a motion, the practitioner must bridge the gap between the clerk’s file and the judge’s desk. Without a record demonstrating that the court was actually cognizant of the motion and was asked to rule, the appellate court will not intervene, regardless of how much time has passed since the filing.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Jose Raquel Lerma filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his “Notice of Place of Imprisonment and Speedy Trial Demand.” The Relator argued that the trial court’s failure to act on these filings constituted a breach of its ministerial duty. However, the record provided to the appellate court consisted primarily of the filings themselves, with no evidence that the trial court was ever notified of the motions or that the Relator had specifically requested a ruling from the bench. The Relator relied on the mere existence of the filed documents as sufficient notice to the court.
Issues Decided
Whether a trial court’s failure to rule on a filed motion warrants mandamus relief when the relator fails to provide a record demonstrating that the trial court was aware of the motion and was asked to rule on it.
Rules Applied
The court applied the established standard for mandamus in criminal proceedings, which mirrors the civil standard: the relator must show a ministerial duty and the lack of an adequate remedy at law. Citing In re Gomez and In re Pete, the court noted that while a trial court has a ministerial duty to rule within a reasonable time, that duty is only triggered when a relator establishes: (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 do so within a reasonable time. Most importantly, the court applied the rule that filing a document with a clerk does not equate to judicial awareness.
Application
The Court of Appeals engaged in a strict burden-of-proof analysis. It noted that the “reasonableness” of a delay in ruling is a fact-dependent inquiry that cannot even begin until the trial court is aware of the motion. Because the Relator failed to provide a record showing he had contacted the court coordinator, requested a hearing, or filed a formal “Request for Ruling,” he could not prove the court was “asked to rule.” The court refused to impute the clerk’s knowledge of the e-filed documents to the judge, holding that the ministerial duty to rule is not a passive obligation triggered by the clerk’s intake, but an active one triggered by the party’s request to the bench.
Holding
The Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus. It held that the Relator failed to meet his burden to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary relief because he did not show the trial court was aware of the motions or was asked to rule on them.
The Court further held that the mere act of filing a document with the district clerk is insufficient to establish that the trial court has received or is aware of the motion, thereby precluding a finding that the court failed to rule within a reasonable time.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case dictates a specific protocol for motions that have languished on the “proposed order” pile. To set the stage for a successful mandamus, you must move beyond the filing stage. If a judge has not ruled on a Motion for New Trial or a Motion to Set Aside a Mediated Settlement Agreement, you must file a “Request for Ruling” and serve it directly on the court’s coordinator. If the coordinator refuses to set a hearing or bring the matter to the judge, you must document that refusal. Silence from the clerk’s office is not a “refusal to rule” in the eyes of the Court of Appeals; you must force the issue into the judge’s actual consciousness to trigger the ministerial duty.
Checklists
Establishing the “Awareness” Prong
- File a formal “Request for Ruling” or “Notice of Submission” that references the specific date the original motion was filed.
- Correspondence with the Court Coordinator: Send a letter or email to the court’s staff (cc’ing all counsel) specifically requesting that the motion be brought to the judge’s attention for a ruling.
- Proposed Orders: Ensure a proposed order is not just filed, but delivered to the court’s chambers (where local rules permit) or uploaded specifically to the “Proposed Orders” queue of the electronic filing system.
- Affidavit of Counsel: Prepare an affidavit for the mandamus record detailing the dates and times you or your staff contacted the court to request a ruling.
Avoiding the “Lerma” Pitfall
- Do not rely on the “reasonable time” clock starting on the date of filing.
- Avoid filing a mandamus petition based solely on the length of time a motion has been pending without a corresponding “Request for Ruling” in the record.
- Ensure the mandamus record contains a “Notice of Hearing” or a written communication from the court declining to set a hearing.
- Verify that the clerk’s record includes the specific request for action, not just the substantive motion.
Citation
In re Jose Raquel Lerma, Nos. 13-26-00129-CR, 13-26-00130-CR, 13-26-00131-CR, 13-26-00132-CR, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 6, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In the context of a divorce or custody battle, this ruling is a strategic weapon for both the movant and the respondent. If you are the movant and the judge is stalling, Lerma provides the exact evidentiary threshold you must meet to force a ruling via mandamus: you must create a paper trail that proves the judge personally knows the motion is pending. Conversely, if you are defending against a threat of mandamus, Lerma provides a powerful defense: if the opposing counsel has only filed the motion and complained about the delay without sending a formal request for a ruling to the coordinator, their petition is “dead on arrival” at the Court of Appeals. In Texas family courts, where dockets are notoriously congested, the distinction between “filed” and “brought to the court’s attention” is the difference between a stalled case and a compelled ruling.
~~1d662fa7-0dfe-484b-85bf-7ff0941fb1d3~~
Share this content: