Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-19-00842-CR
IN RE Gregory Brent DAVIS
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 11, 2019
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
Relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus complaining the trial court has refused
to rule on several motions. Because relator did not provide this court with a sufficient record, we
deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
DISCUSSION
To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show the trial
court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks,
391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has a ministerial
duty to rule on a properly-filed and timely-presented motion. See In re State ex rel. Young v. Sixth
Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011CR8462, styled The State of Texas v. Gregory Brent Davis, pending in
the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.
04-19-00842-CR
However, a 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)(1) (requiring relator to file “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”). In a case such as this one, a relator has the burden to
provide the court of appeals with a record showing the motion at issue was properly filed, the trial
court was made aware of the motion, and the motion has not been ruled on by the trial court for an
unreasonable period of time. See In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 167-68 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding).
Here, relator did not provide this court with copies of his motions, a copy of the trial court’s
docket, or any proof indicating the trial court is aware of the motions. Also, relator did not provide
a record establishing his motions, which he contends he filed on October 17, 2019 and/or
November 5, 2019, have awaited disposition for an unreasonable time. Id. Because relator did
not provide this court with a sufficient record, relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus
relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish
-2-