Co pi es of the doc umen ts c ompl ai ned of a r e in cl ude d i n a ppe ndi ces to Re la tor’ s p eti tio n 1 as requi red by

R ul e 5 2.3(k) of the Tex as Ru le s o f A ppe ll ate Pro ced ure. NO. 07-09 -011 7-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C APR IL 30 , 200 9

_________

_________

_________

___ IN R E GR EGORYD EAN BAN ISTER , R ELATOR

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Relato r, Gregory

Dean Ba nister, p ro c e e d ing pro se and in forma pau peris, see ks a w rit of man dam us to com pel th e Hono rable Felix K lein, Judge of

t he 1 54t h District C ourt of Lamb Co unty , to ru le on v ar iou s moti ons and re q uest s w hic h re lat e to the resol uti on of a w rit of hab eas co rpus. W e de ny Relato r’s petition for w rit of man dam us. 1 Acc ordin g to Rel ator ’s petiti on and docu ments, on S eptember 23, 2008, he fil ed a writ o f habeas cor pus in the t ri al cour t pursuantto ar

ti cl e 11. 07 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re rela ti ng to his Sept ember 16, 2004 c onv icti on for ag g ra v ated ass aul t.2 Ma nd amu s St and ard o f Rev iew

“ M a n d a mu s i s s u e s o n l y t o c o r re cta c l e a r

a b u s e o f d i s c re t i o n or

the v io l a t i o n o f a dut y impo sed by law w hen there is no o the r adequat e rem edy by law .” W alk er v. Packer

, 827 S.W .2d 833, 839 (Tex . 199 2) ( or ig . proceed ing ), q uoti ng Jo hnsonv. F our th C our t of App eals , 700 S.W .2d 916 , 917 (Tex. 1985 ) ( orig. proceed ing). W h e n a p e t i t i o n fo r w r i t o f ma n d a mu s i s fi l e d , t h e re l a t o r h a s t h e b u rd e n to show enti tl ement to the reli ef soug ht. Johns on , 700 S.W .2d a t 917
. A rela tor mustsa ti sfythree re q uirements to show

enti tl ement t o the w ri t: (1 ) a leg al duty to per form; ( 2) a de mand for per formance; and (3 ) a refusal to act. Stoner v. M ass ey, 5 8 6 S
. W
. 2 d 8 4 3 , 8 4 6 (T e x. 1979)
. A c our

t i s n ot req uired to con si der a mot ion not cal led to it s a ttent ion
. Metz ger v. Sebek, 892 S.W .2d 20, 49 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1st Di st. ] 1994, w ri t denied) . Show ing that a moti on was filed w it h the cler k does not cons ti tute proof that the moti on was present ed or broug ht to the tr ial cour t’ s a ttent ion w it h a req uestfor a r uli ng . In r e Chavez , 62 S.W .3d 225 , 228 (Tex.App .–A ma rill o 20 01, orig . procee ding). W hen a moti on i s p ro per ly pendi ng before a tr ial co urt, the a ct of cons ide ri ng and ru li ng upon iti s a min is ter ial act. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall , 8 2 9 S
. W
. 2 d 1 5 7 , 1 5 8 (T e x. 1992 ). Ho wever, t he tr ial co urt has a reason abl e ti me w it hin w hic h to per form that mini ste ri al duty
. Saf

ety-Klee n Corp. v. Garcia , 945 S.W .2d 2 68, 2 69 ( Tex .App. –San Ant onio 199 7, orig. proceed ing). W het her a reaso n a ble pe riod of time h as lapse d isFor con v eni enc e, a rtic le s o f the T ex as Co de of Cri min al Proce dure w il l sub sequen tly be 2 ci te d a s “a rt i cl e _

_ _” o r “A rt i cl e _

_ _”. 3 dependenton t he c ircums tanc es of ea ch cas e. Bar nes v. State , 832 S.W .2d 4 24, 4 26 (Te x .Ap p.– Housto n [1stDist.] 1992 , orig. proce edin g)
. A rticle 11.0 7 - Habeas Corpus A pos t- conv icti on appl ic ati on for w ri t of ha beas cor pus in a felony ca se, othe r than a case in w hich th e de ath pen alty is impose d, m ust be f il e d wi t h t h e clerk of the cou rt in w hic h the co nv icti on bei ng ch all eng ed was obta in e d
. T e x . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 11.07, § 3( b) ( Ver non Su pp. 2008)
. Upo n re cei pt of t he appl ic ati on, t he c ler k i s req uired 2 to for w ard a c opy

thereof to th e att or ney represent ing the sta te. Id. The attor ney re present ing the sta te ha s 1 5 days a fter t he dat e the copyof the appl ic ati on i s recei v ed to file an ans w er . Id.;See Gi bson v. Dal

las C ounty D is t. Cler

k, 27 5 S. W .3 d 49 1 ( Tex .C r i m. App. 2009) (i mpli edl y hol din g the date on w hic h the c ler k recei v es the a ppl ic ati on as the date on w hic h the 15- day answer per iod beg ins ); But see Op. Tex . Atty . G en., No. JM -6 08 (1 986) (findi ng the date on w hic h the state’ s attor ney recei v es the a ppl ic ati on i s t he dat e on which the 15 -day answ er period begins). W i th i n 20 da y s of th e ex pi rat i on of t he t i me in w hich th e stat e is allow ed to answer, the convicting court shall decid e w het her the re are cont rov erted , previously unre solved facts m ate rial to the legality of the ap plicant ’s conf inem ent . Article 11.0 7, § 3( c ). If the con v icting court f inds th at th ere are no such issues, o r if it fails to act w ithin th e 20 days allowed, the clerk of the con v icting court shall4

immedi atel y

transmi t a copy

of the appli cat ion to the Cour t of Cri minal Appeals
. Id. I f the convicting court f inds th at th ere are such issues, w ithin th at sam e pe riod of time, it must enter an o rd er

des ig nati ng the is sues of fact to be resol v ed. Ar ti cl e 11. 07, § 3( d)
. The conv icti ng c o u rt , w it hin the ex erci se of its so und di sc re ti on, mus t t hen act t o resol v e the cont ro v erted, prev iou sly u n re sol v ed fact is sues , and i ss ue findi ng s o f fact
. Id. The conv icti ng co urt i s n ot, how ev er , re q uired to hol d a hear ing before e nter ing findi ng s o f fact
. Ex par te D avi la, 53 0 S. W .2 d 54 3 , 5 4 5 (T e x.Cri m .A p p . 1 9 7 5 ). Furth e rm o re , t h e tri a l ju d ge has no mi nis ter ial duty under ar ti cl e 11. 07 to ente r findi ngs w it hin a s peci fied per iod of ti me. Rod

ri guez v. 208 Ju dicial

D is t. Court

, N o. W R 66224- 01, 2 007 W L 17197 5, at*1 th (Te x .Crim.Ap p. Jan . 24, 200 7) (not designated for pub lication). T hat decision lies w ithin the t ri al jud g e’s so und di sc re ti on. Id. Upo n i ss uance of the f ind ing s of fact , t he c ler k o f the conv icti ng co urt s hal l immedi atel y transmi t t o the C our t of C ri minal Appea ls , t he app lication, any answ ers f iled, an y mot ions f iled, tran scripts of any depositio ns or hea rings, any af f idavits, and any oth er ma tters such as of f icial records used by the convicting court in resolvi ng issues of

fact. Article 11 .07 , § 3(d).

A nal ysis Relato r alleges he has num erou s mo tions and requests pend ing in the tria l c ourt that re lat e to his appl ic ati on for an ar ti cl e 11. 07 w ri t o f

h a b e a s cor pus. The do cument s co n ta in e d in hi s a p p e n d ice s re f le ctf ile st a m p da te s f ro m Se p te m b e r 23 , 2 0 0 8 th ro u gh Nov ember

19, 2008. H owev er , not hin g i n the l imi ted record b e fo re u s d emonst ra tes5

w hether the conv icti ng co urt ev er ente re d an order

des ig nati ng the is sues of fact to be re sol v ed. If the c onv icti ng co urt di d notti mely ente r an order desi g nati ng is sues of factto be re sol v ed, t he c ler k of that cour t w as req uired to immediate ly trans mit Rel ator ’s appl ic ati on to th e Court of

Cri min al App eals. I n such case, t he co nvicting court ha d no duty to perform the a cts w hic h Rel ator

seeks to compel
. In the absenc e of a duty to per form, R ela tor

i s n ot enti tl ed to the re li ef soug ht. Fur ther more, ev en assumi ng an orde r desi g nati ng i ss ues w as ti mely fil ed, n othi ng demonst ra tes thatR ela tor present ed hi s mot ion s a nd req uest s t o the tr ial co urt and that itre f u s e d t o a ct
. Fu rt h e rm o re , Re la t o r h a s n o tp ro vid e d a n y a u t h o ri ty t h a tt h e d e la y, if a n y, in ru li n g o n h is m o t io n s is a n u n r e a s o n a b le t im e p e ri o d a s a m a tt e r o f la w. Ac c o rd in gl y, w e con clude thatRelator ha s not sat isf ied his bu rden to provide a suf f ic ie n t record dem onst rating that p rope rly f iled mo tions h ave aw aited dispositio n for an un reaso nab le len g th of ti me nor that the tr ial cour t has re fused to per

form a mini ste ri al duty
. Nei ther has Rel ator demons trated that the t ri al cour t has abus ed i ts d isc re ti o n or v iol ated a duty impos ed by

l aw . Con seq uentl y , R ela tor ’s peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus i s d eni ed. Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice