1 

### NUMBER 13

- 1 4

- 00539

- C R COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

IN RE JOSEPH ANDREW DI RUZZO

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1 Relator, Joseph Andrew Di Ruzzo, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on September 19, 2014 requesting that we compel the trial court to rule on relator’s motion for a pre

- trial copy of the transcript of the grand jury proceedings. See
T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . § 20.02(d) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). Relator further sought mandamus relief based on the alleged “lack of impartiality and abuse of discretion” shown by the trial court. T his Court request ed and received a response to the

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

petition for writ of mandamus from the real party in interest, the State of Texas, acting by and through the Criminal District Attorney of Victoria County, Texas

. To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show: (1) that he has no adequ ate remedy at law, and (2) that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act. In re State ex rel. Weeks , 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. C t . of App. at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). A remedy at law, though it technically exists, "may nevertheless be so uncertain, tedious, burden some, slow, inconvenient, inappropriate, or ineffective as to be deemed inadequate." Greenwell v. Ct. of App . for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist ., 159 S.W.3d 645, 648

– 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (orig. proceeding). The act sought to be compelled must be a minist erial act that does
not involv e a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young , 236 S.W.3d at 210.
I t is relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

– Houston [1 st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ( “ Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks. ” ). In addition to other requirements, relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record

. ” See generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k)3

(specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. See State ex rel

. Young , 236 S.W.3d at 210. First , the petition for writ of mandamus fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3. Second, relator has not demonstrated that the trial court has been presented with and expressly refused to rule on relator’s motion, or that an unreasonable amount of time has passed since the motion was filed. See In re Dimas , 88 S.W.3d 349, 351 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); accord O'Connor v. First Ct. of Appeals , 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Third, relator has not provided any evidence in support of his contention that the trial court lacks impartiality, has shown bias,

or has otherwise abused its discretion. See State ex rel

. Young , 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 2 5th of September , 2014

.