In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-06-075 CV
____________________
IN RE THOMAS M. HORACE
On March 3, 2006, Thomas M. Horace filed a petition for writ of mandamus. An inmate in custody in the State of Florida, Horace complains of the trial court's failure to rule on motions concerning a detainer placed upon him for a probation violation in Cause No. 17132. On March 9, 2006, we notified the relator that the petition did not comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure applicable to original proceedings filed in appellate courts, granted him thirty days to amend his petition, and directed Horace to mail a copy of the petition to the respondent and the real party in interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5, 52. We also noted the relator's failure to pay the filing fee and advised the relator of the procedures for obtaining indigent status. See Tex. R. App. P. 20. The relator neither amended his petition nor complied with the service requirement by mailing a copy of the petition for writ of mandamus to the judge and to the real party in interest. The relator did not file an affidavit of indigence and the filing fee has not been paid.
To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal matter, the relator must show that he has no other adequate remedy at law to address the alleged error and that the act the relator seeks to compel is ministerial. State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). An act is ministerial if it does not involve the exercise of any discretion and the relator has a clear and indisputable right to relief. Id. Because he complains that the trial court failed to act on a motion, Horace "has the obligation to provide us with a record showing that a properly filed motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable period of time." Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App.-Amarillo, orig. proceeding). Horace's petition does not contain the appendix required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j). The relator has not provided this Court with a copy of his motion to the trial court, nor has he shown that the trial court was aware that the motion had been filed and that a ruling was sought. The relator has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion, nor has he shown that he is entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
WRIT DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Opinion Delivered April 27, 2006
Before Gaultney, Kreger and Horton, JJ.