A Texas appeals court has denied a request from Deira Alan Glover to compel a trial court to rule on his motion for the return of personal property seized during his criminal case. The Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District, ruled on June 24, 2026, that Glover did not meet the necessary requirements for mandamus relief. This decision affects Glover directly, as he continues to seek the return of items taken by law enforcement.
The court's ruling comes from Glover's pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, which is a legal order compelling a lower court to act. Glover's motion pertains to his ongoing legal issues stemming from two criminal cases in Cameron County, Texas. The court's decision highlights the legal standards that must be met for such petitions to be granted.
Glover's legal troubles began with his conviction in 2025, which was affirmed by the same appellate court in a previous decision. The court noted that Glover's petition was linked to trial court cause numbers 2021-DCR-00914 and 2020-DCR-02312. The specific items Glover sought to reclaim were not detailed in the court's opinion, but they were seized during his criminal proceedings.
In order to receive mandamus relief, the court explained that a relator must demonstrate two key points: first, that the action they seek to compel is a ministerial act, and second, that there is no adequate remedy at law. This means that the relator must show that the court has a legal duty to rule on the motion, was asked to do so, and failed to act within a reasonable time frame.
The court also clarified that simply filing a motion does not automatically mean the trial court is aware of it or has been asked to rule on it. Glover needed to show that the trial court received and acknowledged his request. The court stated, “If a party properly files a motion with the trial court in a criminal case, the court has a ministerial duty to rule on the motion within a reasonable time.” However, Glover did not meet the burden of proof required to grant his petition.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Clarissa Silva, along with Chief Justice Tijerina and Justice Cron. They concluded that Glover's petition for a writ of mandamus did not satisfy the necessary legal standards. As a result, the court denied his request.
This ruling has implications for Glover's ongoing legal situation. It underscores the importance of following proper legal procedures when seeking relief in the courts. Glover's inability to secure a ruling on his motion for the return of his property means he will have to explore other legal avenues to address his concerns.
The court's decision also serves as a reminder to others in similar situations about the stringent requirements for obtaining mandamus relief. The ruling emphasizes that individuals must clearly demonstrate their entitlement to such extraordinary relief, particularly in criminal cases.
Looking ahead, Glover may still have options to appeal this ruling or pursue further legal action regarding his seized property. However, details about any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence how similar petitions are handled in the future, as it reinforces the standards that must be met for mandamus relief in Texas.