MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00647-CR
IN RE Evangelos PAGONIS
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 28, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
On September 6, 2011, relator filed two petitions for writ of mandamus. In the first
petition, relator complains the trial court has failed to provide him copies of documents he has
requested. However, in order to be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish that the
trial court: (1) had a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act; (2) was asked to perform the
act; and (3) failed or refused to do so. In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). When a properly filed motion is pending before a trial court,
the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is ministerial, and mandamus may
issue to compel the trial judge to act. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CR-6730-W1, in the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County,
Texas, the Honorable Angus K. McGinty presiding.
04-11-00647-CR
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). However, mandamus will not issue unless
the record indicates that a properly filed motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable
amount of time. See id. Relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to
establish his right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a) (“Relator must file with the
petition [ ] a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for
relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A);
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992).
Here, relator has not provided this court with a file stamped copy of his motion or any
other documents to show that a properly filed motion is pending before the trial court and has
been brought to the trial court’s attention. Relator has failed to meet his burden that a properly
filed motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable amount of time. See id. Based on the
foregoing, we conclude relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly,
relator’s first petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
In relator’s second petition, he asks this court to compel an attorney to abide by a court
order. However, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. By statute,
this court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district or county
court in the court of appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enforce our appellate
jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a)-(b) (West 2004). We conclude the writ is
not necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-