Court Opinion

ID: 9391452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 13:08:51.85763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:42.459651
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                       San Antonio, Texas

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                           No. 04-23-00345-CR

                                   IN RE Mario Garcia MARTINEZ

                                           Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 26, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

           On April 13, 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.

           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. 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

1
 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13972CR, styled State of Texas v. Mario Garcia Martinez, pending in the
County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Susan D. Reed presiding.
                                                                                       04-23-00345-CR

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, relator did not provide this court with a sufficient record showing that he has a clear

right to the mandamus relief sought. See Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, the petition for

writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Relator’s motion for

stay is denied as moot.

                                                   PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                                 -2-