Opinion
No. 05-17-00843-CV
07-24-2017
IN RE STEPHEN DAYNE BRADFORD, Relator
Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-14-54745-I
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Stoddart
In this original proceeding, relator complains that the trial court has not ruled on an application for writ of habeas corpus and motion to recuse filed on June 14, 2017. Relator asks this Court to order the trial court to rule on the motions. Relator is not entitled to the relief requested.
Availability of Mandamus Relief
To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). Further, as the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Lizcano v. Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (Alcala, J. concurring); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
A trial court has a ministerial duty to rule upon a properly filed and timely presented motion. See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). To be properly filed and timely presented, a motion must be presented to a trial court at a time when the court has authority to act on the motion. See In re Hogg-Bey, No. 05-15-01421-CV, 2015 WL 9591997, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 30, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). No litigant is entitled to a hearing at whatever time he may choose, however. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 229 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). A trial court has a reasonable time within which to consider a motion and to rule. In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d 106, 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding); In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding). The circumstances of the case dictate whether the trial court has ruled within a reasonable time. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).
Analysis
The mandamus record before us does not include a certified or sworn copy of the trial court's docket sheet or other proof that establishes relator filed the motions for which he seeks orders and establishes the trial court has failed to rule on relator's motions within a reasonable time. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(a), 52.7(a). As such, relator's petition does not include a record showing that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (noting trial courts are entitled to a reasonable time in which to rule and determining six-month delay was not unreasonable); see also In re Harris, No. 14-07-231-CV, 2007 WL 1412105, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 15, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (holding relator not entitled to mandamus relief when record did not show relator alerted trial court of motion by setting it for submission or hearing). Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.
/s/Craig Stoddart/
CRAIG STODDART
JUSTICE 170843F.P05