Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re Gregory Lynn Allison v. the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 06-26-00031-CR
• Nature of Suit: Mandamus

• Disposition: Motion or Writ Denied

• Opinion

• Authorities (11)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Motion or Writ Denied

Lead Opinion

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00031-CR

IN RE GREGORY LYNN ALLISON

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Gregory Lynn Allison, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus

asking this Court to compel the Honorable Brad Morin, judge of the 71st Judicial District Court

of Harrison County, “to rule on [his] Motion[] of Waiver of Right to Counsel and Motion

Demanding Examining Trial.” Allison contends that he filed both motions on January 9, 2026.

He also states that five days later, he sent a letter to the trial court “putting him on notice to rule

on said motions.” According to Allison, “as of the 29th day of January 2026,” the trial court

“has failed to rule on either of said motions.”

I. Standard of Review

In a criminal case, “[m]andamus relief may be granted if a relator shows that: (1) the act

sought to be compelled is purely ministerial, and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law.” In re

McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). To establish

entitlement to mandamus relief, a relator is required to show that the trial court failed to

complete a ministerial act. See In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App.

2013) (orig. proceeding). An act is considered ministerial “if the relator can show . . . a clear

right to the relief sought.” Bowen v. Carnes, 343 S.W.3d 805, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig.

proceeding) (quoting State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Appeals at Texarkana, 236

S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding)). A clear right to the requested

relief is shown when the facts and circumstances require but “one rational decision ‘under

unequivocal, well-settled (i.e., from extant statutory, constitutional, or case law sources), and

clearly controlling legal principles.’” In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d at 122 (quoting

2
Bowen, 343 S.W.3d at 810). “Mandamus is not available to compel a discretionary act as

distinguished from a ministerial act.” State ex rel. Holmes v. Denson, 671 S.W.2d 896, 899

(Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (orig. proceeding).

II. Discussion

As relator, Allison bears the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record to

establish his entitlement to mandamus relief. See In re Fox, 141 S.W.3d 795, 797 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 167–68 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.

Rule 52.7(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states that a relator must file

with his petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s

claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1).

Rule 52.3(l)(1)(B) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states that the appendix to a

relator’s motion must contain “a certified or sworn copy of the relevant trial court order, or any

other document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(l)(1)(B).

Here, the documents, showing the matter complained of, are Allison’s “Motion[] of

Waiver of Right to Counsel[,] . . . Motion Demanding Examining Trial,” and his notice asking

the trial court to rule on his motions. Although Allison provided the Court with hand-written

examples of the complained of motions and notice, he did not provide the Court with file-marked

or certified copies of any of them. In an effort to defend his inadequate record, Allison states

that he was unable to provide the complained of documents in proper form because he was

3
incarcerated and did not have the “assistance to obtain such copies.”1 Even assuming, without

finding, that Allison’s rationale for his failure to provide the Court with an adequate record has

merit and that the facts stated in his petition are entirely correct, Allison’s requested mandamus

relief should be denied.

“Trial courts are required to consider and rule on motions within a reasonable time,”

“[d]etermining what time period is reasonable is not subject to exact formulation.” In re

Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). As explained

by the Amarillo Court of Appeals:

[A reasonable time to rule] is dependent upon a myriad of criteria, not the least of
which is the trial court’s actual knowledge of the motion, its overt refusal to act
on same, the state of the court’s docket, and the existence of other judicial and
administrative matters which must be addressed first. [Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d
133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding).] So too must the trial
court’s inherent power to control its own docket be factored into the mix. See Ho
v. University of Texas at Arlington, 984 S.W.2d 672, 694–695 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 1998, pet. denied) (holding that a court has the inherent authority to
control its own docket).

In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228–29 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Allison

has provided no argument or authority that just under three weeks is an unreasonable amount of

time for the trial court to rule on his motions.

1
Allison also included a handwritten “Statement of Indgency [sic],” stating that his spouse makes $2,500.00 per
month and that “[s]he is barely surviving” while he is incarcerated.
4
III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we deny Allison’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

Scott E. Stevens
Chief Justice

Date Submitted: March 13, 2026
Date Decided: March 16, 2026

Do Not Publish

5