in Re Edward D. Miller ( 2005 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION  

No. 04-05-00862-CV

IN RE Edward D. MILLER

Original Mandamus Proceeding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:            Alma L. Lopéz, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed:   December 7, 2005

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

            By this original proceeding, relator Edward Miller, an inmate proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable Mary Román of the 175th District Court to set a hearing and rule on various motions he has filed in the underlying criminal matter. A trial court is required to consider and rule upon a motion within a reasonable time. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). Whether a reasonable time has lapsed is dependent upon the circumstances of each case. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). No bright-line demarcates the boundaries of a reasonable time period. Ex Parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). A myriad of factors are influential, not the least of which are the trial court’s actual knowledge of the motion, its overt refusal to act on same, the state of the court’s docket, and the existence of other judicial and administrative matters which must be addressed first. Id. So too must the trial court’s inherent power to control its own docket be factored into the mix. Id. The relator has the burden to provide this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992).

            Miller has not provided this court with copies of his motions, a copy of the trial court’s docket, or any other proof that he filed his motions, that they are pending before the trial court, and that the trial court has actual knowledge of them. Because Miller has not met his burden of providing a record establishing that a properly filed motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable time, he has not provided the court with a sufficient record upon which mandamus relief may be granted. Accordingly, Miller’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

                                                                                    PER CURIAM