1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau se N o . 2007- CR
- 6573, s t y l ed S ta te o f T e x a s v .O sc a r G a b rie l F a b e la , p end i ng i n t he 1 8 7 t h Jud i ci al D i st ri ct C o urt , B exar C o unt y , T exas, t he H o no rable Ra y m o nd A ngel i ni presi d i ng. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION
No
. 04 -0 8- 00 74 4- CR IN RE Os c a r G a

br ie l F ABELA Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Justi ce

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: November 12, 2008 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On Octob e r 3 , 2 00 8, re la tor Os c a r G a

br ie l F a be la fi le d a pe tit ion fo r w ri t of

mand a mus , complaining of the trial c ourt’s fa ilure to rule on the f ollowing pr o se motions: (1) Second Motion for Appointment of Psy chiatrist; (2) Sec ond Notice of I ntent to Raise I nsanity Def ense; (3) Second Mo t i o n t o Dismiss Appoint ed Counsel; (4) Application for Appointment of Attorney ; (5) Motion to S e t; an d (6) Mo tio n for Pr e -t ri a l He a ri ng . Re la tor ha s bee n a pp oin te d c ouns e l to re pr e se nt h im in the criminal proc eedingpending in the trial court. We conclude that relator’s appointed c ounsel in the trial court is also his counsel f or an or igina l proce eding on the issue pre sented.04
- 08
- 00 74 4- CR

- 2- To obtain mandamus re lief in a c riminal matter, the r elator must establish: (1) the a ct soug ht to be compelled is ministerial rather than discr etionary in nature, and (2) there is no a dequate reme dy at law. De le on v . Dis tri c t Cle rk, 187 S.W .3d 473, 474 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Respondent has no mi n i s t er i al duty

to rule on re lator’s pro se motions because r elator is re prese nted by appointed counsel a nd is not entitl ed t o h y

b ri d repr esentation. Se e Ro bin so n v . S tat e , 240 S.W .3d 919, 922 (T ex . Crim. Ap p. 20 07 ); Pa tri c k v . S tat e , 906 S.W .2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Consequently , t h e re s p o ndent did not violate a ministerial duty by declining to rule on re lator’s motions. As to t he thi rd mot ion , to dis mis s h is atto rn e y , n on e of the c op ie s o f t

he mot ion s bea

r a f ile stamped date
. Relator indicates that he filed the motion on September 30, 2008. There fore , if it was fi le d a s r e la tor

c on te nd s, it h a s o nly

be e n p e nd ingfo r o ne mon th. A tri a l c ourt ha s a re a so na ble tim e within which to perfor

m its m inisterial duty
. See P atrick , 906 S.W. 2d a t 49 8; Safety-Klee n Corp.
v . G ar c ia , 945 S.W .2d 268, 269 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 1997, orig . proce eding ). A c c o r d i n g l y, if a c ourt unnec essar ily

delay s ruling, ma

ndamus will lie in appropriate situations. Her e, we cannot say that a per iod of one mont h is an unreasonable delay
. I t is relator’ s burden to provide this court with a rec ord sufficie nt to establish his right to re lief. W alker v . Pack

er , 8 2 7 S. W. 2 d

8 3 3 , 8 3 7 ( T e x. 19 92 ); T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(j), 52.7(a)
. Be cause relator has not met his burden of providing a re cord establishing that a prope rly filed motion ha s awa ited dispositi on for a n unrea sonable amount of time, he ha s n ot p ro vid e d th e c ourt wi th g ro un ds to usu rp the tr ia l c ourt ’s inh e re nt a uth or ity to c on tr ol i ts own docke t. F or the se re a so ns , th is c ourt

ha s d e te rm ined t hat r e la tor is n ot e nti tle d to the re lie f s ou g ht. Acc ording ly , relator’s petition for wr it of mandamus is denied. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a)
. PER C URI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH