What did the court decide?

The appeals court denied Nguyen's request for mandamus because the record did not show an unreasonable delay by the trial court in ruling on his motion.

Who is affected by this decision?

Troy Nguyen, who sought the writ, is directly affected; the trial court retains control to decide the pending motion.

What does this mean for the motion in the trial court?

The trial court still needs to rule on Nguyen's consolidated Rule 306a(4) and 306a(5) motion; the appellate court declined to intervene at this time.

Can this decision be appealed?

This is a denial of mandamus in an original proceeding; further appellate review is generally limited, but Nguyen could seek rehearing or other extraordinary relief if circumstances change.

In Re Troy Nguyen v. the State of Texas

Docket 03-26-00287-CV

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

OtherDenied

Filed: Apr 7, 2026 · 3 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Other
Disposition: Denied
Docket: 03-26-00287-CV

Original proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's alleged failure to rule on a consolidated Rule 306a(4) and 306a(5) motion.

Summary

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied Troy Nguyen's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's alleged failure to rule on his consolidated Rule 306a(4) and 306a(5) motion filed January 20, 2026. The appellate court explained that to obtain mandamus for failure to rule, a relator must show the trial court had a duty to rule, that a demand was made, and that the court failed to rule within a reasonable time. Because the record did not show an unreasonable delay, the court concluded extraordinary relief was not warranted and denied the petition.

Issues Decided

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on a consolidated Rule 306a(4) and 306a(5) motion.
Whether the delay in ruling was an unreasonable length of time sufficient to justify mandamus relief.

Court's Reasoning

The court applied the established three-part test for mandamus based on failure to rule: the trial court must have a duty to rule, the relator must have demanded a ruling, and the court must have unreasonably delayed. The record did not show that Nguyen's motions had been pending for an unreasonable period, and precedents indicate delays under six months are often not unreasonable. Because the relator failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion, extraordinary relief was denied.

Authorities Cited

In re Chavez62 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding)
O'Connor v. First Court of Appeals837 S.W.2d 94 (Tex. 1992)
In re HalleyNo. 03-15-00310-CV, 2015 WL 4448831 (Tex. App.—Austin July 14, 2015) (mem. op.)
In re Blakeney254 S.W.3d 659 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding)
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a)Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a)

Parties

Petitioner: Troy Nguyen
Judge: Maggie Ellis

Key Dates

Motion filed: 2026-01-20
Opinion filed: 2026-04-07

What You Should Do Next

1
Monitor trial court action
Confirm the trial court's timeline for ruling and follow up with the trial judge or clerk if no ruling appears within a reasonable period.
2
Consider rehearing or additional extraordinary relief
If the delay continues and becomes unreasonable, consult counsel about filing a motion for rehearing in the appellate court or a renewed mandamus petition with updated record evidence of delay.
3
Prepare for merits proceedings
Continue preparing substantive briefing and evidence in the trial court so that, if the court rules, you are ready to proceed with any required next steps.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appeals court denied Nguyen's request for mandamus because the record did not show an unreasonable delay by the trial court in ruling on his motion.
Who is affected by this decision?: Troy Nguyen, who sought the writ, is directly affected; the trial court retains control to decide the pending motion.
What does this mean for the motion in the trial court?: The trial court still needs to rule on Nguyen's consolidated Rule 306a(4) and 306a(5) motion; the appellate court declined to intervene at this time.
Can this decision be appealed?: This is a denial of mandamus in an original proceeding; further appellate review is generally limited, but Nguyen could seek rehearing or other extraordinary relief if circumstances change.

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

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN


                                      NO. 03-26-00287-CV




                                       In re Troy Nguyen




                  ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY



                            MEMORANDUM OPINION


               Relator Troy Nguyen has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of

the trial court’s failure to rule on a Consolidated Rule 306a(4) and 306a(5) Motion filed

January 20, 2026. To establish an abuse of discretion for failure to rule, a relator must show that:

(1) the trial court had a legal duty to rule on the motion, (2) relator made a demand for the trial

court to rule, and (3) the trial court failed or refused to rule within a reasonable time. See In re

Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding) (citing O’Connor

v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992)). Here, the record does not reflect that

Nguyen’s motions have been pending for an unreasonable length of time. See, e.g., In re Halley,

No. 03-15-00310-CV, 2015 WL 4448831, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin July 14, 2015) (orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (concluding that delay of less than six months did not constitute

unreasonable length of time under “failure to rule” analysis); In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659,

661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (determining that six-month delay in ruling

would not be unreasonable).
               Having reviewed the petition and the record provided, we cannot conclude that

Relator is entitled to the extraordinary relief requested and therefore deny the petition for writ of

mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).



                                              __________________________________________
                                              Maggie Ellis Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, Ellis

Filed: April 7, 2026




                                                 2