With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". its plenary power argument to the trial court to give the court an opportunity to consider it. In In re Perritt, the Texas Supreme Court held that “[a] party’s right to mandamus relief generally requires a predicate request for some action and a refusal of that request.” Id. However, the court went on to hold that “[o]n rare occasions we have relaxed this predicate when the circumstances confirmed that ‘the request would have been futile and the refusal little more than a formality.’” Id. (quoting Terrazas v. Ramirez, 829 S.W.2d 712, 723 (Tex.1991)(orig. proceeding)). Additionally, typically in a mandamus situation, the request and the refusal of the request comes in the form of an order that is granted or not granted. See Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 556 (Tex.1990) (<HOLDING>); see also In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d at 446

A: holding that in order to have the ability to seek mandamus relief regarding compelling a deposition the trial court had to have explicitly denied the motion to compel the deposition
B: holding that when there was no attempt in a motion to set aside that part of a decree that was final mandamus would not issue to review the action of the lower court in rendering its final decree since mandamus will not issue to compel the court to do anything that it has not been asked to do
C: holding in a capital case that the defendant waived his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue where the trial court took the motion under advisement but the defendant failed to seek a ruling on the motion and failed to renew the motion after the jurors had been qualified
D: holding that mandamus will not lie in a complaint founded on alleged abuse of discretion of the trial court in denying certain testimony until the trial court has denied a proper request to take the deposition of the witness
A.