in Re: Nicholas John Mateik ( 2018 )

Denied and Opinion Filed February 16, 2018
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00128-CV
IN RE NICHOLAS JOHN MATEIK, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 265th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F15-44643-R
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Myers
This Court affirmed relator Nicholas John Mateik’s felony stalking conviction on April 24,
2017. Mateik v. State, No. 05-16-00434-CR, 2017 WL 1483395 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 24,
2017, no pet.). In this original proceeding, relator seeks a writ directing the trial court to grant a
pretrial motion to compel discovery. Relator’s petition is not properly certified as required by rule
52.3(j) of the rules of appellate procedure and does not include an appendix and record containing
the necessary contents set out in rule 52.3(k)(1) and rule 52.7(a). TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j),
52.3(k)(1)(a), 52.7(a). Although these deficiencies alone constitute sufficient reasons to deny
mandamus relief, in the interest of judicial economy we address the petition.
To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that 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). Further, as the party
seeking relief, the relator has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record
to establish his right to mandamus relief. Lizcano v. Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (Alcala, J. concurring); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837
(Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has a ministerial duty to rule upon a properly filed
and timely presented motion. See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236
S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).
Here, relator states that the trial court denied the motion to compel. By ruling on the
motion, the trial court fulfilled its ministerial duty. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for
writ of mandamus.
/Lana Myers/
LANA MYERS
JUSTICE
180128F.P05
–2–