## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 15

- 00141

- CR

IN RE QUINN MCGARY

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess2 

### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator , Quinn McGary, proceeding pro se , has petitioned this Court for mandamus relief. McGary claims to have filed a motion in the trial court requesting a speedy hearing on the State’s
Motion to Revoke hi s community supervision and that the trial court has failed to rule on it in a timely manner. McGary asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamu s to compel the Fifth Judicial District Court of Cass County to rule on his motion. 1 We may grant a petition for writ of mandamus when the relator shows that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm and that the act to be compelled is purely
ministerial. Aranda v. Dist. Clerk , 207 S.W.3d 785, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding). In proper cases, mandamus may issue to compel a trial court to act. In re Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, orig. proceed ing); see also Eli Lily & Co. v.
Marshall , 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (orig

. proceeding) (trial court abuses discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion); Chiles v. Schuble , 788 S.W.2d 205, 207 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist .] 1990, orig. proceeding) (mandamus appropriate remedy to require trial court to hold hearing and exercise discretion). A t rial court i s not required to consider
or rule on a motion unless the motion is called to the court ’ s attention. See Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d
at 662.

1 We may, where appropriate, direct a trial court to rule on a motion after a reasonable time, but this Court cannot instruct the trial court how to rule. See In re Shaw , 175 S.W.3d 901, 904 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding).3

McGary ’ s petition is not accompanied by a certified or sworn copy of the motion that is the subject of his complaint, as is required by the Texas R ules of Appellate Procedure

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 52.3(k )( 1 )( A). This failure to comply with the applicable R ule is fatal to his request for
relief. Further, McGary ’ s petition is accompanied by no proof that he brought this matter to the attention of the trial court, assuming the motion was filed in the first place

. “ [M] andamus relief, however, must be predicated on an adequate showing that a request for a ruling h as been properly and adequately presented to the trial court and that the court has declined to rule. ” Blakeney , 254
S.W.3d at 661

. W e are unable to de termine if this matter has been brought to the trial court ’ s attention or whether the trial court has had a reasonable time in which to rule on McGary ’ s motion.
It is the relator ’ s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the rig ht
to mandamus relief. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 33.1(a) , 52.3(k )( 1 )( A), 52.7(a )( 1). Here, the record is inadequate to grant mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny McGary ’ s petition for writ of
mandamus. 2 Ralph K. Burgess Justice
Date Submitted: A ugust 2 5 , 2015 Date Decided: August 2 6 , 2015
Do Not Publish

2 McGary did attach, however, an excerpt from a reporter’s record, memorializing the trial court ’s revo cation of McGary’s community supervision and sentenc ing him to ten years ’ impri sonment . However , there is no cause number on the reporter’s record excerpt . More significantly , though, McGary also attached an order dis charg ing hi m from community supervision. From the documents attached , it appears McGary is no longer on supervision in the cause number at issue.