Opinion
04-21-00585-CR
01-19-2022
IN RE Stephen Wayne RICHARDSON, Relator
DO NOT PUBLISH
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-10629, styled The State of Texas v. Stephen Wayne Richardson, pending in the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner presiding.
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On December 27, 2021, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he asserts the trial court has failed to rule on several motions and an application for writ of habeas corpus in his underlying criminal case.
A trial court clearly abuses its discretion when it fails to rule within a reasonable time on a properly presented motion. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). 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 submitted a copy of his application for habeas corpus; however, the application is not file-stamped by the district clerk and no other documents were provided by relator showing the trial court was made aware of the application. Relator did not provide this court with copies of the other motions he complains the trial court has refused to rule on or a record establishing these motions have awaited disposition for an unreasonable time. 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.