in Re Miguel Chavez ( 2018 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00536-CR
IN RE Miguel CHAVEZ
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 15, 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 for appointment of counsel pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article
64.01(c).
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).
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2006CR0659, styled The State of Texas v. Miguel Chavez, pending in the
175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary D. Roman presiding.
04-18-00536-CR
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
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).
With the exception of a declaration of indigence, no pleadings or other documents are
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Do not publish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-