1 ... T h is p ro c e e d ing a rise s o u t o f C a u se N o . 2 0 0 5 -C R -2 9 5 0 , in th e 2 2 6 th J u 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 S id L . H a rle p re sid ing
.

2 ... P ri o r t o th e tr ia l c o urt ent eri ng t he M arch 13 , 20 0 9 ord er, rel at o r f i l ed a pe t i t i o n f

o r wr i t of m and am us se e k ing to the c o m p e l the tria l c o u rt to ru le o n re la to r’s m o tio n tha t so u g h t t h e re tur n o f t h e $ 1 4 8 . O n A p ril 8 , 2 0 0 9 , t h is cou r t i s s u ed an opi n i on i n Cau s e N u mber 04- 09- 00136- CR , di s mi s s i n g r el at or ’ s pe t i t i on f or w r i t of

ma n damu s a s moot fo llo w ing the trial c o u rt’s M a rc h 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 o rd e r. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 49 6- CR IN RE J uanRAMON, JR . Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Rebec ca Simmons , J ustice Steven C. Hilbig , J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: September 23, 2009 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On Aug ust 12, 2009, relator Juan Ramon, J r. filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial c ourt to rule on his motion to enforce a cour t or der, or in the alternative, motion for c ontempt. The motion relator se eks to enfor ce is the trial cour t’s Marc h 13, 2009 order

g ranting relator’s motion that sought the r eturn of $148 that had pre viou s l y b een seized. 2 Relator now complains that the trial cour t has failed to r

ule on hi s motion to enfor ce the trial court’ s Marc h 13, 2009 order
.04
- 09
- 00 49 6- CR

- 2- To obtain a pe tition for writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to consider a nd rule on
a mo ti o n , a r e lato r mu s t e s ta b li s h th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt: ( 1 ) h a d a le g a l d u ty to perf

orm 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 An t o n i o 2 0 03, orig . proce eding ). When a prope rly filed motion is pending befor e a tr ial court, the act of g iving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is minist eria l, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial judge to act. See Safety-Klee n Corp. v. Ga rc ia , 945 S.W .2d 268, 269 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 1997, orig . proce eding ). Howeve r, re lator has the burde n of providing this court with a re cord suf ficient to establish his right to mandamus relief
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.7(a) (“Relator must file with the petition [ ] a certifie d or sworn c opy of eve ry document that is material to the rela tor’s cla im for re lief and that was filed in any underlying pr oc e e din g ” ); see also T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k)( 1)(A) ; W alker v. Pac ker , 8 2 7 S. W. 2 d 8 3 3 , 8 3 7 ( T e x. 1992). Her e, re lator has not provided thi s court with a file stampe d copy of his motion or any

other documents to show that a prope rly filed motion is pending be fore the trial cour t. Nor has r elator
e sta bli sh e d tha t th e tr ia l c ourt ha s b e e n ma de a wa

re of his mot ion

or ha s e xpre ssl y

re fu se d to ru le on it. Se e In re Is be ll , N o. 04 -0 6- 00 55 8- CV , 2 00 6 WL 32 06 07 5, a t *2 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A ntonio November

8, 2006, orig . proce eding ) (mem. op.)
. I n addition, the rec ord i ndicates that on Aug ust 18, 2009 the t rial court sent a letter to relator informing him that the proper proce dure for him to follow is to take the Mar ch 13, 2009 orde r sig ned by the trial cour

t to the ag ency

that has custody

of the $148. Ba sed on the for eg oing, w e conc lude that re lator has not shown himself e ntitled to ma n d a mus relief . Acc ording ly , the petition for wr it of mandamus is denied. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a)
.04
- 09
- 00 49 6- CR

- 3- Ad dit ion a lly , r e la tor

fi le d a n App lic a tio n fo r L e a ve to F ile Pe tit ion fo r Wr it o f M a nd a mus . No leave is require d to file a p et i t i o n for a writ of mandamus in thi s court. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52. There fore , relator’s motion for leave to file is denied a s moot.

PER CU RI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH