NUMBER 13-14-00539-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE JOSEPH ANDREW DI RUZZO
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Joseph Andrew Di Ruzzo, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the
above cause on September 19, 2014 requesting that we compel the trial court to rule on
relator’s motion for a pre-trial copy of the transcript of the grand jury proceedings. See
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. § 20.02(d) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). Relator
further sought mandamus relief based on the alleged “lack of impartiality and abuse of
discretion” shown by the trial court. This Court requested and received a response to the
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
1
petition for writ of mandamus from the real party in interest, the State of Texas, acting by
and through the Criminal District Attorney of Victoria County, Texas.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show: (1) that he has no
adequate remedy at law, and (2) that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act. In re
State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If
the relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus
should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of App. at Texarkana, 236
S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). A remedy at law, though it
technically exists, "may nevertheless be so uncertain, tedious, burdensome, slow,
inconvenient, inappropriate, or ineffective as to be deemed inadequate." Greenwell v. Ct.
of App. for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645, 648–49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
(orig. proceeding). The act sought to be compelled must be a ministerial act that does
not involve a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210.
It is relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief.
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.”). In addition to other requirements, relator must
include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the
appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the
contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.”
See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that relator must furnish an
appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k)
2
(specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required
contents for the record).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief.
See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. First, the petition for writ of mandamus fails
to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See generally TEX. R. APP. P.
52.3. Second, relator has not demonstrated that the trial court has been presented with
and expressly refused to rule on relator’s motion, or that an unreasonable amount of time
has passed since the motion was filed. See In re Dimas, 88 S.W.3d 349, 351 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); accord O'Connor v. First Ct. of Appeals, 837
S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Third, relator has not provided any
evidence in support of his contention that the trial court lacks impartiality, has shown bias,
or has otherwise abused its discretion. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
25th of September, 2014.
3