Opinion
No. 04-05-00251-CV
Delivered and filed: May 11, 2005.
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2004-CR-5218, in the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied.
Sitting: Sarah B. DUNCAN, Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice, Rebecca SIMMONS, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 26, 2005, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the 226th District Court's failure to rule on his Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc "Time Credits," and the Bexar County District Clerk's Office's failure to comply with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.07, section 3(c). Relator contends he filed the motion in January 2005 and has written several letters to the Bexar County District Clerk. Relator complains the motion has not been ruled upon, he has not received a response from the trial court or clerk's office, and the clerk's office has not transmitted to this court copies of his motion, any answers, and a certificate reciting the date upon which the trial court found that there were no "controverted, previously unresolved facts material to the legality of applicant's confinement." See Tex. Code Crim. P. art. 11.07, § 3(c) (Vernon 2005).
Article 11.07 states:
Within 20 days of the expiration of the time in which the state is allowed to answer, it shall be the duty of the convicting court to decide whether there are controverted, previously unresolved facts material to the legality of the applicant's confinement. Confinement means confinement for any offense or any collateral consequence resulting from the conviction that is the basis of the instant habeas corpus. If the convicting court decides that there are no such issues, the clerk shall immediately transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of the application, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made. Failure of the court to act within the allowed 20 days shall constitute such a finding.
Tex. Code Crim. P. art. 11.07, § 3(c). However, relator has not provided this court with a copy of his motion, a copy of the trial court's docket, or any other proof that he filed the motion and that it is pending before the trial court. It is the relator's burden to provide this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); Tex.R.App.P. 52.3(j), 52.7(a). Because relator has not met his burden of providing a record establishing that a properly filed motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable time, he has not provided the court with grounds to usurp the trial court's inherent authority to control its own docket.
This court has no mandamus jurisdiction over district clerks unless it is shown the issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Relator has made no such allegation or showing. Also, article 11.07 requires transmittal of certain documents to the Court of Criminal Appeals, not the court of appeals. Tex. Code Crim. P. art. 11.07, § 3(c); see also In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d at 692 (noting courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases).
Therefore, this court has determined that relator is not entitled to the relief sought, and the petition is DENIED. Tex.R.App.P. 52.8(a).