in Re Robert Jenkins ( 2010 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10-00361-CR
IN RE ROBERT JENKINS
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert Jenkins asks this Court to issue a mandamus ordering the trial court to
either rule on his motion nunc pro tunc or explain why the trial court will not respond
to the motion. Jenkins’s entire petition is a single page. There are numerous procedural
problems with Jenkins’s petition. First, Jenkins did not follow the rule regarding the
form and content of a petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. He very
briefly explained what he had filed in the trial court and the relief he requested.
Second, Jenkins did not certify that he reviewed the petition and concluded that every
factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the
appendix or record. Id. at (j). Third, Jenkins failed to include an appendix or record of
the motion and letter he sent to the trial court and upon which he asserts he is entitled
to relief. Id. at (k); 52.7. Fourth, Jenkins failed to provide proof of service of his petition
on the parties to the proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5; 52.2. This list of deficiencies is not
exclusive. However, we use Rule 2 to look past these and the other deficiencies. TEX. R.
APP. P. 2.
Given the length of time Jenkins’s motion has been on file, 60 days, we cannot
say that, even if Jenkins properly brought the motion nunc pro tunc and letter
requesting a ruling to the trial court’s attention, the trial court has had a reasonable
amount of time to rule on the motion. See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Jenkins’s petition is denied.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
Petition denied
Opinion delivered and filed October 20, 2010
Do not publish
[OT06]
In re Jenkins Page 2