Opinion
NO. 01-17-00637-CV
11-16-2017
IN RE RICHARD DUNSMORE, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Richard Dunsmore, who has been adjudicated as a sexually violent predator, seeks mandamus relief to compel the trial court to rule on his motion seeking a transfer from the Texas Civil Commitment Center in Littlefield, Texas to a "Tier 5 Placement" in Delaware. We deny the petition.
The underlying case is In re The Commitment of Richard A. Dunsmore, cause number 84023-CV, pending in the 412th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, the Honorable W. Edwin Denman presiding.
Dunsmore complains that the trial court has not ruled on his motion. Although he suggests that his motion was an unauthorized petition for release which required a ruling within 60 days, the motion expressly invoked the procedure for "movement between programming tiers," which has no such statutory requirement.
See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 841.123(b) ("The judge shall review and issue a ruling on a petition for release filed by the committed person without the office's authorization not later than the 60th day after the date of filing of the petition.").
See id. § 841.0834 (movement between programming tiers).
To show the trial court abused its discretion by not ruling, Dunsmore was required to demonstrate that the trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule on the motion. See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); In re Tarvin, No. 01-11-01127-CV, 2012 WL 1454496, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 24, 2012, orig. proceeding). All mandamus petitioners, including self-represented parties, must furnish a record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426. Here, Dunsmore has not provided a record showing that the trial court received a motion requesting relief, was made aware of it, was asked to rule on it, and refused to rule. See id.
In all other respects, we deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Caughey.