Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District denied Sidney Earl Parker’s pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that Parker failed to provide a sufficient record, including correspondence showing that he expressly requested a hearing on his motion for a hearing transcript, and therefore did not establish entitlement to mandamus relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Parker established entitlement to mandamus relief based on the alleged failure or refusal of the trial court to rule on his motion for a hearing transcript.
Holdings
- A relator alleging that a trial court failed to rule on a properly filed motion must establish that the trial court had a legal duty to rule, was asked to rule, and either refused to rule or failed to rule within a reasonable time.
- A mandamus petitioner bears the burden to properly request relief and provide a record sufficient to establish entitlement to that relief.
Key quotations
“When a mandamus petition is based on an allegation that a trial court has failed to rule on a properly filed motion, the relator must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) either refused to rule on the motion or failed to rule within a reasonable time.”
Factual background
Sidney Earl Parker, an inmate with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, sought a hearing transcript and alleged that the trial court had failed or refused to rule on his motion since September 15, 2025. He did not provide copies of correspondence with the trial judge or appropriate court coordinator expressly requesting a hearing on the motion.
Procedural history
Relator Sidney Earl Parker, proceeding pro se and incarcerated, alleged that the Travis County trial court had failed or refused to rule on his motion for a hearing transcript, which he claimed had been pending since September 15, 2025. The court of appeals denied the mandamus petition because Parker did not provide correspondence showing that he expressly requested a hearing on the motion and therefore failed to establish entitlement to mandamus relief.