DO NOT PUBLISH

OPINION

RICHARDSON, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which KELLER, P.J., and HERVEY, ALCALA, YEARY, NEWELL, KEEL, and WALKER, JJ. joined. KEASLER, J., concurred in the result.

On July 13, 2016, Relator, James Michael Jeffcoat, filed with this Court a Petition for Original Writs of Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, and Mandamus. Relator asks this Court to compel the Third Court of Appeals to consider and rule upon the Motion for Rehearing he filed with the Third Court of Appeals on July 5, 2016. We will treat Relator's request as one seeking mandamus relief.1 We hold that the Third Court of Appeals did not have a ministerial duty to rule on Relator's Motion for Rehearing. We dismiss Relator's petition for original writs of habeas corpus (WR-82,597-03) and certiorari (WR-82,597-04), and we deny his petition for mandamus relief (WR-82,597-05).

Background

On May 10, 2005, Relator was convicted of a Class C misdemeanor in County Court at Law No. 1 in Williamson County.2 Eight years later, on February 13, 2013, Relator filed a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court pursuant to Articles 11.05 and 11.09 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as Article V, § 8 of the Texas Constitution, seeking relief from his conviction.3 The trial court denied Relator's writ application. He appealed, and the Third Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the writ on August 13, 2014.4 Relator did not file a motion for rehearing or a petition for discretionary review within the prescribed time limits.5

Relator's counsel claims that he intended to file a motion for rehearing with the court of appeals, but he missed the filing deadline because he did not receive notice of the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's denial of his writ. According to the Third Court of Appeals, its website reflects that notice of the memorandum opinion was e-mailed to Relator's counsel on August 13, 2014 (the date of the opinion). However, Relator's counsel asserted that he did not know about the opinion until October 23, 2014, when he received an e-mail informing him that the mandate in this case had issued.

On October 27, 2014, Relator filed with the Third Court of Appeals a motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing pursuant to Rule 4.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.6 Relator's request for additional time to file a motion for rehearing was timely—it was filed within the required 15 days of the date he claimed he received notice, and within the required 90 days of the date of the decision of the court of appeals. However, by letter dated December 15, 2014, the Clerk of the Third Court of Appeals informed Relator that his Motion for Additional Time to File a Motion for Rehearing "was denied." Relator then filed an Application for Writ of Mandamus in this Court to compel the Third Court of Appeals to grant the Motion for Additional Time to File a Motion for Rehearing.7 That request was denied by this Court.8 Relator also tried filing an application for writ of habeas corpus with the 167th District Court in Travis County, but the 167th District Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief.9

Relator's Out-of-Time Motion for Rehearing

Shortly after this Court decided Ex parte Valdez,10 Relator filed an application for writ of habeas corpus with the Williamson County Court at Law No. 1 (the court of conviction) seeking an out-of-time motion for rehearing. In Valdez, we held that a trial court has the authority to grant habeas relief in the form of an out-of-time petition for discretionary review where the case involves a judgment imposing community supervision.11 In Relator's case, his application for habeas relief filed with the County Court sought an order granting him the right to file an out-of-time motion for rehearing with the Third Court of Appeals. On June 28, 2016, the judge of County Court at Law No. 1 granted relief to Relator allowing him to file an out-of-time motion for rehearing with the Third Court of Appeals.12 Relator then filed his Motion for Rehearing with the Third Court of Appeals; however, the Clerk of the Third Court of Appeals sent Relator a letter stating that the court of appeals would take "no further action . . . in this appeal."13 Relator now asks this Court to compel the Third Court of Appeals to rule on his Motion for Rehearing. Relator is seeking mandamus relief complaining of the inaction of the court of appeals.

Mandamus relief is available only if Relator can establish two things: (1) that the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial, and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law.14 In this case, we need only to address the first requirement. An act is ministerial "where the law clearly spells out the duty to be performed . . . with such certainty that nothing is left to the exercise of discretion or judgment."15 Relator must have a "clear right to the relief sought,"16 meaning that he must show that the facts and circumstances of the case "dictate but one rational decision `under unequivocal, well-settled . . . and clearly controlling legal principles.'"17

However, in this case, the law is not clearly spelled out. Ex parte Valdez was a narrow holding—"a trial court is authorized to reset the clock for an out-of-time PDR should such relief be necessary through a meritorious application for a writ of habeas corpus."18 Ex parte Valdez does not give clear guidance to the Third Court of Appeals on whether the trial court had authority to grant Relator an out-of-time motion for rehearing. Although a motion for rehearing is addressed in the Rules of Appellate Procedure, it is not a statutory right as is a direct appeal,19 nor is it even permitted by statute, as is a petition for discretionary review.20 Thus, it is not clear under established legal precedent that the trial court had authority to grant habeas relief in the form of an out-of-time motion for rehearing pursuant to our holding in Ex parte Valdez. A mandamus action is not the proper vehicle for us to decide a new rule of law. Therefore, the court of appeals does not have a ministerial duty to rule on the motion. Mandamus relief is denied.21