Summary
denying petition for writ of mandamus seeking, among other relief, to obtain transcript from October 2018 hearing
Summary of this case from Mireles v. Office of Inspector Gen. for Tex. Dep't of Pub. SafetyOpinion
NO. 03-20-00479-CV
11-04-2020
In re Gustavo Lopez Mireles
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Gustavo Lopez Mireles, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking the transcripts of a hearing that occurred in district court cause number D-1-GN-18-001929 on October 30, 2018, and the "release" of "the recent forensic expert from the Law Enforcement Support Division management" from the Texas Department of Public Safety and Office of Inspector General in "DNA TDPS Case No. L3M-48628."
To the extent that Mireles seeks mandamus relief against the district clerk, the Texas Department of Public Safety, or the Office of Inspector General, we have no jurisdiction to grant Mireles relief. This Court's mandamus jurisdiction is expressly limited to: (1) writs against a district court judge or county court judge in this Court's district, and (2) all writs necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221. Thus, we have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk, the Texas Department of Public Safety, or the Office of Inspector General unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See id. Mireles has not demonstrated that the exercise of our writ power against the district clerk, the Texas Department of Public Safety, or the Office of Inspector General is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.
In his petition, Mireles also seeks relief against the refusal by the "201st District judicial court, to address the Relator's requests and filed motions for the production and the cost for obtaining the Hearing's transcribed verbatim" for the hearing on October 30, 2018. Although this Court has jurisdiction to issue writs against a district judge, it is the relator's burden to properly request and establish entitlement to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); In re Roberts, No. 03-12-00513-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7134, at *2 (Tex. App—Austin Aug. 21, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) ("Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks."). "In this regard, the relator must provide the reviewing court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief." Roberts, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7134, *3 (citing Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding)); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k) (specifying required contents for appendix), 52.7(a) (requiring relator to file with petition "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").
Mireles attached to his petition copies of a letter to the district clerk from him dated August 19, 2019, with a "Motion for Production of Hearing Transcripts" and a letter to the district clerk from him dated April 1, 2020, with a "Motion for Production of Hearing Reporter's Record and Transcript." Mireles, however, has not provided this Court with a file-stamped copy of his motions or any other documents to show that a properly filed motion is pending before the trial court.
Mireles also attached copies of the following documents to his petition: (i) a letter addressed to Mireles from the district clerk dated April 23, 2018, acknowledging receipt of paperwork from him that he was representing himself in Cause No. D-1-GN-18-001929; (ii) a letter to the district clerk from Mireles dated May 1, 2018, with his affidavit of indigence; (iii) Defendant's Chapter 14 Motion to Dismiss in Cause No. D-1-GN-18-001929, filed on September 17, 2018; (iv) a letter to the district clerk from Mireles dated September 22, 2018, with his reply and written objections to the Chapter 14 motion to dismiss; and (v) a letter to the district clerk from Mireles dated October 18, 2018, with his motion for bench warrant. In addition, Mireles attached copies of documents that appear to concern his criminal conviction. For example, he attached a letter addressed to him from the Texas Department of Public Safety dated February 28, 2018, responding to his request for an additional investigation into the 2002 testimony from a DNA expert. These documents are not relevant to his requested mandamus relief concerning the hearing transcript.
Further, to obtain mandamus relief based on a trial court's refusal to rule on a motion, a relator must establish: (1) the motion was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule. Roberts, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7134, *2 (citing In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding)). "A relator must show that the trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule on the motion." Id. (citing Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 661). In this proceeding, even if we assume that the motions attached to his petition were filed with the district clerk, Mireles has not demonstrated that the motions were brought to the trial court's attention or that the trial court is aware of the motions. "Merely filing the matter with the district clerk is not sufficient to impute knowledge of the pending pleading to the trial court." Hearn, 137 S.W.3d at 685.
Based on the record that Mireles has provided, we conclude that he has failed to show his entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
/s/_________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Smith Filed: November 4, 2020