In Hill v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927-28 (Tex.Cr.App. 2001), the trial court followed the "plain" language of a statute which the relator sought to have declared unconstitutional. See Hill, 34 S.W.3d at 926. The Court held that the relator failed to establish a "clear legal right" to have the statute declared unconstitutional in part because the constitutional issue was one of first impression but also (and more importantly) because we could not hold that "the trial court would be conducting a ministerial act by refusing to apply the plain language" of the statute that relator sought to have declared unconstitutional. See Hill, 34 S.W.3d at 928. Hill does not stand for the proposition that, when the issue involved in a mandamus proceeding is one of first impression, this is necessarily dispositive of the ministerial act requirement. In Hill, the Court held that a trial judge did not have a ministerial duty to declare a "bail-pending-appeal" statute unconstitutional; he had the duty to exercise judicial discretion, regardless of whether he made the "correct" legal decision.