Opinion
No. 04-18-00434-CR
07-11-2018
IN RE John C. DOMINGUEZ
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Original Mandamus Proceeding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013-CR3592, styled The State of Texas v. John C. Dominguez, pending in the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sid L. Harle presiding.
This is not the first mandamus proceeding in which relator has complained of the trial court's refusal to rule on his pending motions to compel his trial attorney to surrender his case files. In a prior proceeding, we denied the petition for writ of mandamus because relator did not provide this court with a record showing he was entitled to relief.
A relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish a right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a) (relator must file a certified or sworn copy of every document material to relator's claim for relief that was filed in the underlying proceeding). In a case such as the one before us, a relator has the burden to provide this court 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); In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 167-68 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding).
In this proceeding, relator attached to his petition a copy of a document from the Bexar County District Clerk's Office informing relator about the cost to obtain copies of the following documents: (1) a motion to compel attorney to surrender case file that was file-stamped January 2, 2018, and (2) a motion to compel attorney to surrender case file that was file-stamped June 30, 2016. Even if this document was sufficient to demonstrate the motions were filed with the Bexar County Clerk, filing a document with the district clerk does not impute the clerk's knowledge of the filing to the trial court. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). A "trial court is not required to consider a motion that has not been called to its attention by proper means." In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Therefore, relator has not shown he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM Do not publish