LAW.coLAW.co

In Re Deira Alan Glover v. the State of Texas

2026-06-24

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

NUMBERS 13-26-00496-CR, 13-26-00497-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE DEIRA ALAN GLOVER

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Silva and Cron

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Deira Alan Glover seeks to compel

the trial court to issue a ruling on relator’s motion to compel law enforcement to return

personal property to him that was seized during relator’s criminal proceedings. Relator’s

petition for writ of mandamus arises from trial court cause numbers 2021-DCR-00914 and

2020-DCR-02312 in the 357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, and the petition

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

for writ of mandamus is docketed respectively in our appellate cause numbers 13-26-00496-CR and 13-26-00497-CR. This Court affirmed relator’s conviction in trial court

cause number 2021-DCR-00914-E in 2025. See Glover v. State, 714 S.W.3d 916, 918

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2025, pet. ref’d).

In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish

both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary

or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged

harm. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding). If

the relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should

be denied. See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236

S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). It is the relator’s burden to

properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. See id.; In re Pena, 619

S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding); see also

Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig.

proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show

himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”); see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3,

52.7.

“If a party properly files a motion with the trial court in a criminal case, the 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 has requested a ruling.” In re

Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). A

relator seeking relief for the failure to rule must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal

2

duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused

to rule on the motion within a reasonable time. In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320, 321 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d

106, 106–07 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The

relator must show that the trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule on

the motion. In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig.

proceeding). Merely filing a document with the district clerk neither imputes the clerk’s

knowledge of the filing to the trial court nor equates to a request that the trial court rule

on the motion. In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d at 322; In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d at 107. Whether a

reasonable period has elapsed is dependent on the circumstances of each case. In re

Black, 640 S.W.3d 894, 897 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2022, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the limited record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not

met his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

CLARISSA SILVA

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the

24th day of June, 2026.

3