See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 47. 4 ( di st i ngui shi ng o pi ni ons a nd m em or andum opi ni ons) , 52. 8( d) ( “ W hen 1 de ny i ng rel i ef, t he co urt m ay ha nd do w n a n o pi ni on bu t i s no t requ i red t o d o s o.” ). 

### NUM BER 13-09- 0063 2-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG

IN RE: R OLA ND O A LMENDA REZ
On A p p lic at io n f o r L ea v e to F ile Peti tion for Wr it of M andamus and Peti tion for Wr it of M andamus


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef o re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es R o d rig u ez a n d G ar za

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam 1 Relato r, Rola ndo A lme nda rez , f iled an “Ap plication f or Lea v e to File Pet ition f or W rit of Manda mu s,” as w ell as a pet ition fo r w rit of man dam us, in w hich he requests tha t this Cou rt di re ct re spond ent, the H onor abl e R ober to “ Bobby ” Fl o res, pr esi din g j udg e of the 139th Judi ci al Di str ic t C our t of H ida lg o C ounty , Tex as, to ru le on r ela tor ’s peti ti on for
ex punct ion of re cor ds filed pur sua n t to c h apter 55 o f the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Pr ocedu re

. See T EX

. C OD E C R IM

. P ROC

. A NN

. arts. 55 .01 -.06 (Vern on Su pp. 200 9). Th is Cou rt , hav ing ex amined and fully co nsi der ed r ela tor ’s appl ic ati on and peti ti on, i s o f the opin ion th at (1) relator’s app lication f or leave to f ile petitio n f or w rit of man dam us sho uld2

be g ra nted, but that (2 ) re lat or has not show n hi msel f entit led to mandamus re li ef. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52 .8(a). Ma ndamus w il l is sue to cor re ct a clea r abus e of disc re ti on for w hic h the r emedy by appeal is ina deq uate. I n re P ru d e n t ia l I n s

. Co

. o f

A m. , 1 4 8 S

. W

. 3 d 1 2 4 , 1 3 5 -3 6 (T e x. 200 4) (orig . procee ding). A tri al court abuse s its discretion w hen it acts in an un reaso nab le
or ar bit ra ry manner ; or , s tated di ff er entl y , w hen i t ac ts w it hout ref e re n ce to g uid ing r ule s and pr inc ipl es. See, e.g., Beaum ont B ank, N .A. v. Bul ler , 8 0 6 S

. W

. 2 d 2 2 3 , 2 2 6 (T e x. 1991)

. A tri al ju dg e has a “ re asona ble ti me” to pe rfor m the mini ste ri al duty of cons ide ri ng
a n d r uli ng on a pr oper ly fil ed moti on. In r

e C havez , 62 S.W .3d 225 , 2 2 8 (T e x. App .–A ma rill o 20 01, orig . procee ding). W het her the judge has act ed wi thin a reason able per iod of ti me depends on t he c ir cums tanc es of the c ase. In re R am ir ez , 994 S.W .2d 6 82, 683 -84 (Te x . App .–S an An ton io 199 8, orig. proceed ing). In t he ex punct ion co ntex t, del ay s u p to and i ncl udi ng thr ee month s h av e been deter mined by

co ur ts not to be unr eason abl e. See I n r e Bur den , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 610, at * 4- 6 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana Jan. 30, 2008, or ig . pr o ce edi ng ) (mem. op.) ( one month) ; In re Davis , 2006 Tex

. App. LEX IS 9263, at *4 (Tex

. App.–W aco Oct

. 2 5 , 2006,
or ig. p ro ceeding ) (mem. op.) ( thr ee month s) ; In re Ford , 200 4 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 8 869, at *3 (Te x . App .–S an An ton io Oct. 6, 2 004 , orig. proce edin g) (mem . op. ) ( tw o mo nth s). Her e, the tr ial cour

t has del ay ed r uli ng on r ela tor ’s ex punct ion peti ti on for, at most, three mon ths. W e no te ad dition ally that relator has n ot at ta c hed any docum ent to his
ma nda mu s petitio n, such as his ex pun ction pet ition or a cle rk’s record, that w ould supp ort his cont enti on that he pr oper ly filed his ex punct ion peti ti on or that the tr ial cour t has faile d to ru le ther eon. See I n r e Bur den , 2008 T ex . App. LEX IS 6 10, a t * 3 ( deny ing mandamus relief in part beca use “the re is nothin g to sup port [rela tor’s] state me nt [tha t the trial court
re fused to ru le on r ela tor ’s moti on to co mpel an ex punct ion r uli ng ] ex cept f or a cer ti ficat e of serv ice w hich sta tes on ly that the m otion to com pel w as de posite d in prison m ail”).3

Acc or din g ly , on th e r ecor d before us , w e c annot say that the tr ial co urt has cl ear ly abus ed it s d is cr eti on by not y et r uli ng on r ela tor ’s ex punct ion peti ti on. See I n r e Pr udenti al Ins . C o.
o f A m. , 148 S.W .3d a t 135 -3 6. For the f oregoing reason s, relato r’s app lication fo r leave to file w rit of man dam us is GRANT ED, and relator’s petitio n f or w rit of man dam us is DENIED.

PER C UR IAM Del iv er ed and filed the 24th day of Nov ember , 200 9.