i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-08-00746-CR
IN RE Eduardo H. WILLIAMS, Jr.
Original Mandamus Proceeding1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 22, 2008
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On October 6, 2008, relator filed a Motion for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
No leave is required to file a petition for writ of mandamus; therefore, we DENY the motion for
leave to file as moot. Also on October 6, 2008, relator filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, asking
this court to order the trial court to rule on his motion for appointment of counsel, which he seeks
for the purpose of requesting and obtaining access to “records and public information.” Relator
contends he filed his motion on July 9, 2008. Relator has not provided this court with a copy of his
motion or any other evidence of the number of other cases, motions, or issues pending on the trial
court’s docket; the number of cases, motions, or issues that have been pending on its docket longer
… This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1993-CR-0762-W 2, filed in the 144th Judicial District Court,
1
Bexar County, Texas.
04-08-00746-CR
than relator’s motion; the number of cases, motions, or issues pending on its docket that lawfully
may be entitled to preferential settings; or the trial court’s schedule. Without such evidence, we can
not assess whether the trial court has acted unreasonably in failing to address the motion within the
slightly more than three months it has been pending. A trial court has great discretion over its
docket, and, while it cannot opt to forever avoid hearing a motion, no litigant is entitled to a hearing
at whatever time he may choose. See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001,
orig. proceeding); see also Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (party seeking
mandamus relief has burden of providing court with a sufficient record to establish his right to
relief).
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 this court with grounds
to usurp the trial court’s inherent authority to control its own docket. 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).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish
-2-