Court Opinion

ID: 4297232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-07-24 20:24:00.980878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:55:51.480973
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                        San Antonio, Texas

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                            No. 04-18-00467-CR

                                      IN RE Willie L. JACKSON Jr.

                                      Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Karen Angelini, Justice
                  Marialyn Barnard, Justice
                  Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 18, 2018

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

           Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining the trial court has refused to rule

on his motion to dismiss his court-appointed attorney.

           To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show the trial

court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks,

391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has a ministerial

duty to rule on a properly-filed and timely-presented motion. See In re State ex rel. Young v. Sixth

Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

           However, a relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to

establish his right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring relator to file “a

1
  This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017CR03621, styled The State of Texas v. Willie L. Jackson, Jr., pending
in the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jefferson Moore presiding.
                                                                                       04-18-00467-CR

certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that

was filed in any underlying proceeding”). In a case such as this one, a relator has the burden to

provide the court of appeals with a record showing the trial court was made aware of the motion

at issue and that such motion has not been ruled on by the trial court for an unreasonable period of

time. See In re Gallardo, 269 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, orig. proceeding).

       Nothing is attached to relator’s petition. Because relator did not provide this court with a

record, he has failed to establish the motion at issue was filed with the trial court, the trial court

was made aware of the motion, or the trial court has expressly refused to rule on the motion.

Therefore, relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition

for writ of mandamus is denied.

                                                  PER CURIAM

Do not publish

                                                 -2-