in Re John Eric Ginn ( 2015 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00330-CR
IN RE John Eric GINN
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 3, 2015
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On May 28, 2015, relator John Eric Ginn filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus
seeking an order directing the trial court to rule on relator’s requests to obtain a copy of his
attorney-client file and a copy of trial court records at no or reduced cost.
When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of giving
consideration to and ruling upon that motion is a ministerial act and mandamus may issue to
compel the trial judge to act. See Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148-49 (Tex. Crim. App.
2004); see also Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
1997, orig. proceeding) (holding a trial court is required to consider and rule upon a motion within
a reasonable time). Several factors may be considered in determining whether the trial court has
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008CR1279, styled The State of Texas v. John Eric Ginn, pending in the
379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.
04-15-00330-CR
unnecessarily delayed a ruling, including the trial court’s actual knowledge of the motion, its overt
refusal to act on it, the state of the court’s docket and the existence of other judicial and
administrative matters requiring the court’s attention. Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); see also In re Gallardo, 269 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2008, orig. proceeding).
The relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish a
right to mandamus relief including, in a case such as this, that the trial court was made aware of a
properly filed motion and that the motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable period of
time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a) (“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”); In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 167-68 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding).
Relator has not provided this court with a record sufficient to establish his claim for
mandamus relief. Relator does not provide a copy of any motion filed in the district court, and the
trial court record does not establish that any motion has been filed with the district clerk, that the
trial court has been made aware of the motion or that the trial court has expressly refused to rule
on it. In re Gallardo, 269 S.W.3d at 645. We conclude Ginn has not shown himself entitled to
mandamus relief on this record. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-