Court Opinion

ID: 9389464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:10:44.676684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:27.382493
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                          San Antonio, Texas

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                              No. 04-23-00178-CR

                                      IN RE Ramiro Cordova GARCIA

                                              Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 19, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

           On March 6, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed a motion

for stay of the underlying proceeding pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus,

which this court granted in part on March 8, 2023.

           Relator’s mandamus petition argues the trial court has failed to rule on his application for

writ of habeas corpus and his motion to urge. 2 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

1
  This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13514CR, styled State of Texas v. Ramiro Cordova Garcia, pending in the
County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth and the Honorable Susan Reed
presiding.
2
  Relator’s motion to urge seeks a ruling from the trial court on his habeas application prior to any in-person settings
and requests “that his mandatory in-person presence be waived until the State has made it clear it can satisfy its
burden.”
                                                                                       04-23-00178-CR

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

the motion, and the trial court has refused to rule on the motion or that the trial court has not ruled

on the motion for an unreasonable time period. See In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 167-68 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding) (“After these prerequisites are met, we have jurisdiction to direct

the trial court to consider and rule on pending matters; however, we may not tell the trial court

what ruling it should make.”).

       Here, the record contains file-stamped copies of relator’s application for writ of habeas

corpus and motion to urge. Additionally, the record provides evidence of relator’s efforts to bring

his filings to the attention of the trial court. We note, however, that during the pendency of this

original proceeding, the trial court ruled on relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus. Because

relator has received a ruling on his application for writ of habeas corpus, this issue is now moot.

See In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (holding

mandamus moot where relator received relief sought).

       Although the trial court ruled on relator’s habeas application, the mandamus record does

not show that the trial court has ruled on his motion to urge. Nevertheless, relator did not provide

this court with a record or authority indicating that the trial court has refused to rule on his motion

to urge or that he has been waiting for a ruling for an unreasonable time. See Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d

at 167-68; Hearn, 137 S.W.3d at 685-86.

                                                 -2-
                                                                                  04-23-00178-CR

       Based on the record before us, relator has not satisfied his mandamus burden. Accordingly,

the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed in part and denied in part. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a). The stay imposed on March 8, 2023 is lifted.

                                                PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                              -3-