Opinion
NO. 14-18-00335-CR
05-10-2018
IN RE JAMES K COONS, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS
185th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 461986
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 26, 2018, relator James K. Coons filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator complains that the presiding judge of the 185th District Court of Harris County, has not provided a copy of realtor's motion for DNA testing to the attorney representing the State. See Tex. Code Proc. art. 64.02(a) (West Supp. 2017).
To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) that the relator has no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief the relator seeks; and (2) what the relator seeks to compel involves a ministerial act rather than a discretionary act. In re Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494-95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding).
Section 64.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the convicting court shall (1) provide the attorney representing the State with a copy of the convicted person's motion for DNA testing; and (2) require the attorney representing the State, no later than the 60th day after the motion is served on the attorney representing the State, to either deliver the evidence to the court, along with description of the evidence, or explain in writing to the court why the State cannot deliver the evidence to the court. Tex. Code Proc. art. 64.02(a).
It is relator's burden to provide a sufficient record to establish that he is entitled to relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Relator has failed to do so. Relator has not provided this court with a file-stamped copy of the motion for DNA testing. In the absence of a file-stamped copy of relator's motion, relator has not established that his motion was filed and is pending in the court. See In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). Therefore, in the absence of proof that relator's motion for DNA testing is pending in the trial court, relator has not shown that the trial court failed to provide a copy of the motion to the attorney representing the State. Accordingly, we deny relator's request for mandamus relief.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Jamison.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).