in Re Carlton Stroud ( 2018 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00730-CR
IN RE Carlton STROUD
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 31, 2018
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On October 11, 2018, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining the trial
court has refused to rule on his motion to dismiss.
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).
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
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018CR4160, styled The State of Texas v. Carlton Stroud, pending in the
186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jefferson Moore presiding.
04-18-00730-CV
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 must establish the
trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3)
failed to do so. In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.–Waco 2003, orig. proceeding); In
re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). It is relator’s
burden to provide the court with a record sufficient to establish his right to relief. Walker v. Packer,
827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a).
Finally, the temporal requirement on a trial court to rule on a pending motion is only that
the judge rule within a “reasonable time.” In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
1998, orig. proceeding). Whether such a period has lapsed is dependent upon the circumstances
of each case. Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228. Moreover, “no bright-line demarcates the boundaries of
a reasonable time period.” Id. Its scope is dependent upon a myriad of criteria, including the trial
court’s actual knowledge of the motion, its overt refusal to rule, the state of the court’s docket, and
the existence of other judicial and administrative matters that must be addressed first. Id. at 228-
29.
Attached to relator’s petition is a copy of a document titled “Motion to Dismiss on Ground
of Inadmissible Hearsay.” The document was file stamped by the Bexar County District Clerk on
June 8, 2018. No other documents were provided by relator.
Relator’s petition does not include a record showing that he requested a hearing on the
motion or asked the trial court to rule, or that the trial court has refused to rule. Further, the record
does not contain a copy of the trial court’s docket or other proof establishing the trial court has
failed to rule on relator’s motion within a reasonable time. As such, relator has not established his
entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. See In re Florence, No. 14–11–
-2-
04-18-00730-CV
00096–CR, 2011 WL 553241, at *1 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 17, 2011, orig.
proceeding) (absent proof that the trial court has been requested to rule on the motion but refused
to do so, relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of
mandamus).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish
-3-