Denied and Opinion Filed August 17, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00886-CV IN RE ARTHUR E. HE NDERSON, Relator Original Proceeding from the Cr iminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-0958128-L 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright Opinion by Justice Bridges In this original proceeding, relator seeks a writ of mandamus d irecting the trial court to rule on a motion for discovery pur portedly filed July 6, 2018. We d eny the petition. To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequat e remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks , 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding) . A trial court has a ministerial duty to rule upon a properly filed and timely prese nted motion. See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Di st. Court of Appeals , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). To be properly filed and timely presented, a moti on must be presented to a trial court at a time when the court has authority to act on the motion. See In re Hogg–Bey, No. 05–15– 01421–CV, 2015 WL 9591997, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 30, 2 015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). A trial court has a reasonable time within which t o consider a motion and to rule. In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d 106, 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding); In re–2– Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—W aco 2008, orig. proceeding). To be entitled to mandamus relief compelling a trial court to rule on a motion, a relator must establish that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion because the mo tion was properly filed and timely presented, (2) was asked to rule on the motion, and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable period of time. In re Molina , 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). As the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden of prov iding the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to mandamus r elief. Lizcano v. Chatham , 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (Alca la, J. concurring); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Rules 52 .3 and 52.7 require the relator to provide “a certified or sworn copy” of certain docum ents, including any order complained of, any other document showing the matter complained of, and every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 5 2.7(a)(1). Here, the mandamus record does not include a certified or sworn copy of the trial court’s docket sheet or other proof that establishes relator filed the motion, requested a hearing and/or ruling on the motion, and the tria l court has failed to act on relator’s requests within a reasonable time. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(a), 52.7(a). Furth er, the trial court has not be en given a reasonable amount of time to rule on the motion assuming it was filed on o r after July 6, 2018. As such, relator has not established a vi olation of a ministerial duty a nd is not entitled to mandamus relief.–3– Accordingly, we deny relator’s p etition for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relat or is not entitled to the relief sought).

180886F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE