in Re Eugene Broussard ( 2012 )

Opinion issued June 21, 2012.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00499-CR
———————————
IN RE EUGENE BROUSSARD, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Eugene Broussard, petitioned for writ of mandamus asking that we
compel the trial court to rule on his April 20, 2012 motion to enter judgment and
sentence nunc pro tunc.1
Mandamus may issue to compel a trial court to rule on a motion for
judgment nunc pro tunc addressing jail-time credit which has been pending before
1
The underlying case is State of Texas v. Eugene Broussard, No. 1289627 (230th
Dist. Ct., Harris Cnty., Tex.), the Honorable Marc Brown, presiding.
the court for a reasonable period of time. See Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147,
149 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (per curiam). However, to obtain mandamus relief for
the trial court’s refusal to rule on such a motion, a relator must establish: (1) the
motion was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time; (2) the
relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule. In
re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig.
proceeding);seeIn re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004,
orig. proceeding). The mere filing of a motion with a trial court clerk does not
equate to a request that the trial court rule on the motion. Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d
at 861; Hearn, 137 S.W.3d at 685.The relator has the burden of providing a record
establishing that his motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable time. In
re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 168 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig.
proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1) (―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. . . .‖).
Relator has failed to establish the required elements.
Furthermore, relator’s petition is procedurally defective. See, e.g., TEX. R.
APP. P. 9.5(a), (d), (e) (requiring proof that copies of documents presented to court
for filing were served on all parties to proceeding); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(b)–(f)
(requiring that petition include table of contents, index of authorities, statement of
2
case, statement of jurisdiction, and issues presented); TEX. R. APP. P.52.3(h)
(requiring that petition include appropriate citations to authorities and to appendix
or record materials); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j) (requiring that relator certify he
reviewed petition and concluded that every factual statement in petition is
supported by competent evidence included in appendix or record); TEX. R. APP. P.
52.3(k) (requiring that appendix include certified or sworn copy of any document
showing matter complained of) (emphasis added); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)
(requiring relator to file record with petition).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Any pending
motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3