1 ... T hi s p r oceedi ng ari s es o ut o f C aus e N os. 20 08
- C R
- 10 19 9, 200 8- C R
- 10 20 0, an d 20 08
- C R
- 10 20 1, s t y l ed S ta te o f Te x a s v . W

ill ie S . P h ill ip s, J

r. , p e n d ing in t h e 3 9 9 th Ju d ic ia l D istric t C o u rt, B e x a r C o u n ty, T e x a s , t h e H o n o ra b le Juanit a A
. V asquez - G ardne r presi d i ng. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 74 2- CR IN RE Wil lie S. P HIL LIP S, J r. Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Dece mber 16, 2009 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On No ve mbe r 1 8, 20 09 , r e la tor Willi e S. Ph ill ips , J r. fi le d a pet iti on fo r w ri t of

mand a mus , seekingto compel the trial c ourt t o rul e on his motion to di smiss hi s appointed counse l, Bra ndon Hudson. Howeve r, in or der to obta in a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to c onsider and rule on a motion, a relator must establish that the trial c ourt: (1) ha d a leg al duty to perform a nondiscretionar

y act; (2) was a sked to perf orm the ac t; and (3) f

ailed or r efuse d to do so. In re M olina , 94 S.W .3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Anton i o 2003, orig . proce eding ) (pe r cur iam). When a04
- 09
- 00 74 2- CR

- 2- proper ly filed motion is pending be fore a trial c ourt, the ac t of g iving c onsideration to and r uling upon t h at motion is minist eria l, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial judg e to ac t. See Sa fet y-Kle e n Co rp . v . G ar c ia , 9 4 5 S
. W
. 2 d 2 6 8 , 2 6 9 (T ex . Ap p . — S an An t o n i o 1 9 9 7 , o ri g. proce eding ). Howeve r, mandamus will not issue unless the re cord shows that a prope rly filed motion has awa ited dispositi on for an unrea sonable amount of time. See id. I t is relator’s bur den to pr ovide this c ourt with a rec ord sufficie nt to establish his r ight to relief. W alker v . Pack

er , 827 S.W. 2d 83 3, 83 7 ( Te x. 19 92 ); T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a ). T h e r ec o rd b e f

o r e u s fa i l s t o es t ab l i s h re l at o r i s en t i t l ed t o t h e r el i ef re qu es t ed
. Al t h o u gh relator alleg es he filed his motion, relator has not pr ovided this court with a file stampe d copy of the mot ion , a c op y of th e tr ia l c ourt ’s do c ke t, o r a ny oth e r p ro of

that he fi le d th e mot ion

a nd that it is pe nd ingbe fo re the tr ia l c ourt . I n a dd iti on , if a mot ion is pr op e rl y fi le d, a tr ia l c ourt ha s a re a so na ble time within which to perfor m its m inisterial duty
. See Safe ty-Kleen , 945 S.W .2d at 269. Ev e n if relator’s motion was properly filed, relator has not established the moti on has aw aited disposition for a n unrea sonable amount of time. Acc ording ly , beca

use relator has not met his burden of pr oviding a rec ord establishing that a motion was prope rly

filed and has awa ited dispositi on for a n unrea sonable amount of time, he has not provided this court with g rounds to usur p the trial court’ s inherent a uthority to control its own docket. See In re Me nd

oz a , 131 S.W .3d 167, 168 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, or ig. pr ocee ding)
. Acc ording ly , relator’s petition for wr it of mandamus is denied. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a)
. PER C URI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH