Opinion
No. 04-12-00831-CR
12-21-2012
IN RE Ali MAYBERRY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Original Mandamus Proceeding
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2012-CR-2540, styled State of Texas v. Ali Mayberry, pending in the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Angus McGinty presiding.
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On December 12, 2012, Relator Ali Mayberry filed a petition for writ of mandamus, which appears to complain the trial court has failed to enter an order on Mayberry's Motion to Affirm and Maintain Request for Self-Representation. However, in order to be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act; (2) was asked to perform the act; and (3) failed or refused to do so. In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding).
When a properly filed motion is pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is ministerial, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial judge to act. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). However, mandamus will not issue unless the record indicates that a properly filed motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable amount of time. See id. 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) ("Relator must file with the 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"); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
Here, the relator's motion has been pending only since December 10, 2012. We cannot say the motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable amount of time. Based on the foregoing, we conclude the relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH