### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10 - 19 - 00014 - CR IN RE JERRY RANGEL
Original Proceeding

O P I N I O N
In this original proceeding, 1 Relator Jerry Rangel seeks mandamus relief in the form of compelling the Respondent trial judge to rule on Rangel’s motion for post

conviction DNA testing under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 64. 2 We requested a

1 Rangel 's petition for writ of mandamus has s everal procedural deficiencies. It does not include the certification required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j). See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52 .3(j). The appendix, which apparently serves as R angel 's record, is not certified or sworn to, as required by Ru les 52.3(k) and 52.7(a)(1). See id . 52.3(k), 52.7(a)(1). The petition also lacks proof of service on the Respondent trial judge. See id . 9.5, 52.2. Because of our disposition and to expedite it, we will implement Rule 2 and suspend these rules. Id . 2.

2 We affirmed Ra ngel’s aggravated sexual assault conviction in 200 9

. Rangel v. State , No. 10

- 07

- 00247

- CR, 2009 WL 540780 (Tex. App.

— Waco Mar. 4, 2009, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., n ot designated for publication).In re Rangel Page 2

response to Relator’s petition, which the State has now filed. Having reviewed Relator’s petition and the State’s response, we deny Realtor’s petition. “A court with mandamus authority ‘will grant mandamus relief if relator can demonstrate that the act sought to be compelled is purely ‘minis terial’ and that relator
has n o other adequate legal remedy. ’ ” In re Piper , 105 S.W.3d 107, 109 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2003, orig. proceeding) (quoting State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe , 98 S.W.3d 194, 197

– 99 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2003) (orig. proceeding)). Considerati on of a motion properly filed and before
the court is ministerial. State ex rel. Hill v. Ct. of Apps. for the 5th Dist. , 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 001) (orig. proceeding). A trial judge has a reasonable time to perform the ministerial duty of considering and ruling on a motion properly filed and before the judge. In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). But that duty generally does not arise until the movant has brought the motion to the trial judge's attention, and mandamus will not lie unless the movant makes such a showing and the trial judge then fails or refuses to rule within a reasonable time. See id

. Ra ngel bears the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See In re Mullins , 10

– 09

– 00143

– CV, 2009 WL 2959716, at *1, n. 1 (Tex. App.

— Waco Sept. 16, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex

. App.

— Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). There is no record showing that Ra ngel has brought his petition to the attention of the trial judge and that the trial judge has then failed or refused to rule within a reasonable time. In itsIn re Rangel Page 3

response to Rangel’ s petition, the State provides exhibits that reflect that the petition was
forwarded t o the Court of Criminal Appeals the date it was received. Accordingly, w e deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

REX D. DAVIS Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, * Justice Davis, and Justice Neill *(Chief Justice Gray concurring) Petition denied Publish Opinion delivered and filed March 13, 2019 [OT06]