in Re James Striblin ( 2020 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-20-00179-CR
IN RE James STRIBLIN
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 1, 2020
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining the trial court has refused to rule
on motions requesting discovery to support his habeas corpus claims. Because relator did not
provide this court with a sufficient record, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
DISCUSSION
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. 2013CR4270, styled The State of Texas v. James Striblin, pending in the
186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jefferson Moore presiding.
04-20-00179-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 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 period of time. See In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 167-68 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding).
Here, relator provided this court with copies of his motions, but none of the motions are
file-stamped to indicate they were properly filed. Relator did not provide this court with proof
indicating the trial court is aware of the motions or a record establishing his motions have awaited
disposition for an unreasonable time. Id. Because relator did not provide this court with a
sufficient record, relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the
petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish
-2-