### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00077- CV

In re Nathan Hun ter

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator Nathan Hunter , an inmate proce eding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mand am u s complaining of the trial court’s alleg ed failure to rule on his motion for judgme nt nunc pro tunc . In the motion, Hunter cla ims that he was denie d 40 day s of jail-time cre dit.

Mandamus may issue to compel a t ri al court to rule on a motion for judgme nt
nunc pro tunc addre ssing jail-time cre dit whic h has been pending befor e the court for a rea sonable period of time. See Ex parte Y barra , 149 S.W .3d 147, 149 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); In re Sarkissian , 243 S.W .3d 860, 860-61 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig
. proce eding ). Howeve r, to ob tain ma n d amus relief for the tr ial court’s r efusa l to rule on such a motion, a r elator must establish: (1) the motion
wa s p roperly filed and has been pending for a rea sonable time; (2) the relator reque sted a ruling
on the motion; and (3) the trial court ref used to rule. See In re Hearn , 137 S.W .3d 6 8 1, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig
. proce eding ). The relator has the burden of providing a rec ord establishing that his motio n has awa ited dispositi on for an unrea sonable time. In re Mendoza , 131 S.W .3d 167, 168 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 2004, orig. procee ding) . Moreove r, mere ly filing
a motion with a district or trial court cler k does not equate to a reque st that the trial court rule on the motion. See H

earn , 137 S.W .3d at 685.Addit i o n al l y , whether a rea sonable amount of time has lapsed is depende nt on the

circ umstances of eac h case ; “no brig ht-line demar cate s the boundarie s of a rea sonable time period.” Ex parte Bates , 65 S.W .3d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amar illo 2001, orig
. proce eding ). Courts consider
sever al fac tors in de termining whether the trial cour t ha s unnece ssarily delayed a ruling , including the trial court’s actua l knowledg e of t h e m o t i o n, its overt ref usal to act on it, the state of the court’s docket, t he court’s inhere nt power to control i ts docket, and the exis tence of other judicial and administrative matter s which must be addr essed. See id
.

Although Hunter has provided this Court with a copy of h i s motion for judgme nt
n u n c pro tunc, he has otherwise failed to provide us with any corr espondenc e to the district court reque sting a ruling on the motion or any other document demonstrating that the motion was brought to the district court’s attention and, if so, that the district court has ref used to rule on the motion. Nor has Hunter

included any

thing in the rec ord that would allow us to de termine whether a re asonable amount of time has lapsed since the motion was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) (re lator must file with petition “a cer

tified or sworn copy of ever y document that is materia l to the relator’s claim for relief and that wa s filed in any underlying pr ocee ding” ). The petition for writ of m an d am u s i s denied without prejudice
. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Filed: Mar ch 1, 2012
2