What did the court decide?

The court denied Alexander's request for a writ of mandamus because he did not identify the motions or provide record evidence they had been filed and presented to the trial court.

Who is affected by this decision?

Relator Ronald Lee Alexander is affected because his request for a court order to force the trial court to rule on his alleged pro se motions was denied; the trial court remains free of a mandamus directive from this court.

The appellate court dismissed any pending motions as moot and denied mandamus relief; Alexander may try to present properly supported filings to the trial court or seek other appropriate relief with proper record support.

Why was the petition denied?

Because the petition failed to meet procedural requirements and lacked documentation showing the motions existed and had been brought to the trial court's attention, which is necessary for mandamus.

Can this be appealed or refiled?

Mandamus denials are generally final in the immediate proceeding, but Alexander can refile a properly supported mandamus petition or pursue relief through the trial court by ensuring motions are filed and the record reflects they were brought to the court's attention.

In Re Ronald Lee Alexander v. the State of Texas

Docket 01-26-00424-CR

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

OtherDenied

Filed: Apr 30, 2026 · 6 days ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Other
Disposition: Denied
Docket: 01-26-00424-CR

Original mandamus proceeding in the court of appeals seeking an order directing the trial court to rule on alleged outstanding pro se motions.

Summary

The First District of Texas denied Ronald Lee Alexander’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order that the trial court rule on unidentified pro se motions. Alexander alleged the trial court failed to perform a ministerial duty by not ruling, but he did not identify the motions or provide records showing they were filed and brought to the trial court’s attention. Because his petition did not meet the mandamus standards or the appellate rules requiring record support, the court concluded he failed to show entitlement to relief and denied the petition, dismissing any pending motions as moot.

Issues Decided

Whether a relator is entitled to mandamus relief when he alleges a trial court failed to rule on pro se motions but does not identify the motions or provide record proof they were filed and brought to the court's attention.
Whether the mandamus petition complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and relevant mandamus standards requiring a sufficient record.

Court's Reasoning

Mandamus relief requires a clear showing that the relator is entitled to the relief and supporting record evidence that the matter was filed and brought to the trial court's attention. Alexander's petition failed to identify the pro se motions or include record proof they existed or were presented to the trial court. Because he did not meet the procedural and substantive requirements under the appellate rules and controlling mandamus precedent, the court concluded he was not entitled to the extraordinary remedy and denied the petition.

Authorities Cited

Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureTEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(l), 52.7(a)(1), 52.8(a)
In re Gomez602 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding)

Parties

Relator: Ronald Lee Alexander
Respondent: State of Texas
Judge: Nikita V. Harmon

Key Dates

Opinion issued: 2026-04-30
Underlying direct appeal decision (affirmed): 1999-10-21

What You Should Do Next

1
Provide record proof to the trial court
File the pro se motions in the trial court and obtain file-stamped copies or other record evidence showing the motions were filed and brought to the court's attention.
2
Seek trial-court ruling directly
Move in the trial court for rulings on any pending motions and, if necessary, request a status conference or set the motions for hearing with supporting notice to the court.
3
Consult counsel about refiling
Consult an attorney to determine whether to refile a mandamus petition with the court of appeals, ensuring the petition includes the necessary record and complies with appellate rules.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court denied Alexander's request for a writ of mandamus because he did not identify the motions or provide record evidence they had been filed and presented to the trial court.
Who is affected by this decision?: Relator Ronald Lee Alexander is affected because his request for a court order to force the trial court to rule on his alleged pro se motions was denied; the trial court remains free of a mandamus directive from this court.
What happens next?: The appellate court dismissed any pending motions as moot and denied mandamus relief; Alexander may try to present properly supported filings to the trial court or seek other appropriate relief with proper record support.
Why was the petition denied?: Because the petition failed to meet procedural requirements and lacked documentation showing the motions existed and had been brought to the trial court's attention, which is necessary for mandamus.
Can this be appealed or refiled?: Mandamus denials are generally final in the immediate proceeding, but Alexander can refile a properly supported mandamus petition or pursue relief through the trial court by ensuring motions are filed and the record reflects they were brought to the court's attention.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Opinion issued April 30, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-26-00424-CR
———————————
IN RE RONALD LEE ALEXANDER, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Ronald Lee Alexander, incarcerated1 and proceeding pro se, filed a

petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the trial court has “fail[ed] to do [its]

1
Relator appealed his conviction for the felony offense of capital murder, which was
affirmed by this Court in 1999. See Alexander v. State, No. 01-98-00505-CR, 1999
WL 959235, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 21, 1999, no pet.) (not
designated for publication).
ministerial duty to rule on [relator’s] pro se motions.”2 However, relator’s

mandamus petition fails to identify, or provide a record of, the pro se motions for

which he alleges the trial court has failed to rule. Nor does relator’s mandamus

petition establish that such motions were filed and brought to the attention of the

trial court. See In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2020, orig. proceeding). Despite that, relator’s petition requested that this Court

grant his request for mandamus relief and direct the trial court to “rule on all his

pro-se motions pending in the” trial court.

Our review of relator’s mandamus petition reflects that he has failed to

establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(l),

52.7(a)(1); see also In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 73. Accordingly, we deny relator’s

petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We dismiss any pending

motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Gunn, Caughey, and Morgan.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

2
The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Ronald Lee Alexander, cause number
779738, pending in the 176th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable
Nikita V. Harmon presiding.