Court Opinion

ID: 9393072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 13:07:38.127256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:50.782685
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                        San Antonio, Texas

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                            No. 04-23-00219-CR

                             EX PARTE Jose Antonio SOLIS RAMIREZ

                                            Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 3, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

           On March 9, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed an

emergency motion to stay the underlying proceedings pending disposition of the petition for writ

of mandamus.

           For mandamus relief in a criminal case, a relator has the burden to show the trial court

violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth

Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig.

proceeding). A trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on a properly filed and timely presented

motion. See id. However, a relator has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). A relator must provide the court of appeals with a record showing

1
  This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13540CR, styled State of Texas v. Jose Antonio Solis Ramirez, pending in
the County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Susan D. Reed presiding.
                                                                                           04-23-00219-CR

the motion at issue was properly filed, the trial court was made aware of the motion, and the motion

has not been ruled on by the trial court for an unreasonable time period. See In re Mendoza, 131

S.W.3d 167, 167–68 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832

S.W.2d 424, 426–27 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).

        Here, the record contains a copy of relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus.

However, the copy of relator’s habeas application is not file-stamped, and this record does not

establish that the trial court was aware of relator’s filing or that the trial court has failed to rule for

an unreasonable period of time. See id. Based on the record before us, relator has not satisfied his

mandamus burden. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a). Relator’s emergency motion to stay is denied as moot.

                                                     PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                                   -2-