Court Opinion

ID: 9382591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 12:08:34.404346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:40.331035
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                         San Antonio, Texas

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                             No. 04-23-00044-CR

                               IN RE Jose Javier GONZALEZ VILLEDA

                                             Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 22, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

           On January 12, 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, which this court granted in part on January 13, 2023.

           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. 11372CR, styled State of Texas v. Jose Javier Gonzalez Villeda, pending in
the County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth presiding.
                                                                                                       04-23-00044-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 file-stamped copy of relator’s application for writ of habeas

corpus. Additionally, the record provides evidence of relator’s efforts to bring his filings to the

attention of the trial court. However, this record does not establish that the trial court has failed to

rule for an unreasonable period of time. 2 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). The stay imposed on January 13, 2023 is lifted.

                                                            PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

2
 We note relator filed an email from the trial court’s court coordinator and argues the email constitutes a ruling on his
motion for continuance. Relator did not provide authority to support this argument. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h).

                                                          -2-