                                      In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                                ________________

                               NO. 09-15-00375-CR
                                ________________

                      IN RE MARVIN HOLMES
__________________________________________________________________

                           Original Proceeding
            Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 08-04992-A
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Relator Marvin Holmes filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, in

which he complains that the trial court did not respond to his request for “nunc pro

tunc relief.” Holmes did not include a file-stamped copy of the motion to which the

trial court allegedly failed to respond, nor does he describe his efforts to secure a

ruling on his motion. “‘A [trial] court is not required to consider a motion that is

not called to its attention.’” Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 49 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (quoting Greenstein, Logan & Co. v.

Burgess Mktg., Inc., 744 S.W.2d 170, 179 (Tex. App.—Waco 1987, writ denied)).


                                         1
“Showing that a motion was filed with the court clerk does not constitute proof that

the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention or presented to the trial court

with a request for a ruling.” In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding).

      Holmes has failed to demonstrate that his motion was properly filed and that

he brought his motion to the trial court’s attention. Holmes has not demonstrated

that he is clearly entitled to mandamus relief from this Court. See State ex rel Hill

v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)

(To demonstrate entitlement to a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that

the trial court failed to perform a ministerial duty, and that relator has no other

adequate legal remedy.). Accordingly, we deny relief on the petition for writ of

mandamus.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                    PER CURIAM



Submitted on September 29, 2015
Opinion Delivered September 30, 2015
Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.



                                          2
