Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-23-00030-CR
IN RE Alejandro Ortiz CONTRERAS
Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 8, 2023
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On January 12, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed an
emergency motion to stay the underlying proceedings pending disposition of the petition for writ
of mandamus, which this court granted in part on January 13, 2023.
For mandamus relief in a criminal case, a relator has the burden to show the trial court
violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth
Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig.
proceeding). A trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on a properly filed and timely presented
motion. See id. However, a relator has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). A relator must provide the court of appeals with a record showing
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13062CR, styled State of Texas v. Alejandro Ortiz Contreras, pending in
the County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth presiding.
04-23-00030-CR
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 time period. See In re Mendoza, 131
S.W.3d 167, 167–68 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832
S.W.2d 424, 426–27 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).
Here, the record contains file-stamped copies of relator’s application for writ of habeas
corpus and motion for continuance. Additionally, the record provides evidence of relator’s efforts
to bring his filings to the attention of the trial court. However, this record does not establish that
the trial court has failed to rule for an unreasonable period of time. 2 See id. Based on the record
before us, relator has not satisfied his mandamus burden. Accordingly, the petition for writ of
mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The stay imposed on January 13, 2023 is lifted.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
2
We note relator filed an email from the trial court’s court coordinator and argues the email constitutes a ruling on his
motion for continuance. Relator did not provide authority to support this argument. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h).
-2-