In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-09-00063-CV
______________________________
IN RE:
ZACHARY W. LAWSON
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Zachary W. Lawson filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court informing us that he had been detained since December 22, 2008, and had not yet been indicted by a grand jury. Lawson complained that the trial court failed to rule on his motion for examining trial, second motion for bail reduction, motion to dismiss prosecution and discharge bail. Lawson's petition makes clear that he was represented by an attorney at some point. He complains of counsel's failure to file his pro se motions. Finally, Lawson challenges the trial court's ruling regarding suppression of evidence. The remaining portion of Lawson's petition is unintelligible, and the certificate of service does not demonstrate that the respondent has been served. We determine that Lawson is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that issues only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law when no other adequate remedy by law is available. State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex. 1984) (orig. proceeding). Due to the nature of this remedy, it is Lawson's burden to properly request and show entitlement to the mandamus relief. See generally Johnson v. Fourth Dist. Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ("Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.").
Lawson had the obligation to provide us with evidence in support of his claim that he is entitled to mandamus relief. No portion of any clerk's record or reporter's record has been filed with this Court. The absence of a mandamus record prevents us from evaluating the circumstances of this case and, consequently, the merits of Lawson's complaints. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7; Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: June 25, 2009
Date Decided: June 26, 2009