OPINION
Relator Billy Ray Risley has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to order the trial court to pronounce sentence upon relator in relator’s presence in accordance with article 42.03, section 1(a) of the code of criminal procedure. Tex.Code CRiM. PRoc. Ann. art. 42.03, § 1(a) (Vernon Supp.2005). Because we conclude that relator is entitled to the relief he requests in his petition, we conditionally grant mandamus relief.
Relator filed a notice of appeal in this court on September 1, 2005 from his June 7, 1990 conviction for possession of a controlled substance. That appeal, which is currently pending in this court, is docketed under a separate cause number, Number 02-05-00354-CR. On this court’s own motion, we questioned whether we had jurisdiction over the appeal; relator responded that we did have jurisdiction because he had been sentenced in absen-tia1 and the trial court had never pronounced sentence in relator’s presence as required by article 42.03, section 1(a) of the code of criminal procedure. Id.2 We determined that we had jurisdiction over the appeal3 and on December 13, 2005, issued an abatement order in which we ordered the trial court to “impose sentence on [relator] in accordance with article 42.03, section 1(a) of the code of criminal procedure.”
*855The State objected to the abatement order and requested that we withdraw it, on the ground that relator’s conviction was final on June 7, 1990, when he was sentenced in absentia; therefore, his notice of appeal was due in July 1990. See Tex. R.App. P. 26.2(a)(1), 26.3. According to the State, because it is too late for relator to file a notice of appeal, his only remedy is a postconviction writ of habeas corpus. See Tex.Code Cmm. PROC. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon 2005).4
After reviewing the issue further, we withdrew the abatement order in the direct appeal and issued an order concluding that relator’s appeal had been prematurely filed and that our jurisdiction had not yet been invoked because relator had not yet been sentenced in accordance with article 42.03, section 1(a). Relator then filed a nunc pro tunc motion in the trial court asking the trial court to sentence him in accordance with article 42.03, section 1(a).5 In response to inquiries from our clerk’s office, the trial court clerk confirmed that relator’s nunc pro tunc motion was presented to the trial court and that the trial court noted to file the motion but not to take any action on it.6 The trial court still has not ruled on the motion, nor has it pronounced sentence on relator under arti-ele 42.03, section 1(a). In light of this court’s previous orders in the direct appeal, the trial court’s refusal to rule on the motion is a denial of the relief relator requests and is entitled to: to have the trial court pronounce his sentence in his presence.
To obtain mandamus relief in criminal law matters in the courts of appeals, a relator must establish that (1) the act he seeks to compel is ministerial, rather than discretionary in nature, or that the trial court clearly abused its discretion, and (2) no other adequate remedy at law is available. See Lanford v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 847 S.W.2d 581, 586 & n. 5 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (orig. proceeding); Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 548-50 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (orig. proceeding). We already addressed the merits of this issue in our abatement order and our order withdrawing the abatement order in the direct appeal; in those orders, we held that the time for filing a notice of appeal runs — not from the date a defendant was sentenced in absen-tia — but from the date the trial court pronounces sentence upon a defendant in the defendant’s presence in accordance with article 42.03, section 1(a).7 We hold that *856the trial court has abused its discretion by refusing to sentence relator in accordance with the mandates of article 42.03, section 1(a).8 Moreover, because we have previously concluded that we do not have jurisdiction over relator’s notice of appeal in cause number 02-05-00354-CR until the trial court has properly pronounced sentence, we further conclude that relator does not have an adequate remedy by appeal.9 Accordingly, we hold that relator is entitled to mandamus relief.
We conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and order the trial court to pronounce sentence upon relator in his presence in accordance with article 42.03, section 1(a) of the code of criminal procedure. A writ of mandamus will issue only if the trial court fails to comply with these instructions.