Opinion
No. 05-16-01454-CV No. 05-16-01455-CV
01-12-2017
IN RE SENRICK WILKERSON, Relator
Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-01183-J and F10-01184-J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers
Before the Court is relator's December 13, 2016 petition for writ of mandamus in which relator complains that the trial court has failed to rule on his motion for nunc pro tunc, motion for Chapter 64 DNA testing, and "motion for judicial review of fraudulent documentations." Although a trial court has a duty to rule within a reasonable time, the relator seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to rule must establish that he took action to alert the trial court that it had not yet considered his motion. See In re Harris, No. 14-07-231-CV, 2007 WL 1412105, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 15, 2007, orig. proceeding) (holding relator not entitled to mandamus relief when record did not show relator alerted trial court of motion by setting for submission or hearing).
Here, the petition for writ of mandamus is not certified as required by rule 52.3(j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and does not include an appendix or record that establishes when the motions were filed and whether relator has sought a ruling and/or hearing on any of the motions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j), 52.3(k), 52.7(a). It is relator's burden to bring forth a record showing that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). He has not done so in this case. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
JUSTICE 161454F.P05