Court Opinion

ID: 9384551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 13:07:30.387502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:54.487416
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                        San Antonio, Texas

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                            No. 04-23-00056-CR

                                  IN RE Luis Jesus BANCHI-DIMAS

                                            Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 29, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

           On January 17, 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 17, 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. 1329CR, styled State of Texas v. Luis Jesus Banchi-Dimas, pending in the
County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth presiding.
                                                                                        04-23-00056-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 motion. However, this record

does not establish that the trial court was aware of relator’s motion 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). The stay imposed on January 17, 2023 is lifted.

                                                    PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                                  -2-