in Re Johnny Hinojos Luna, Relator ( 2010 )

NO. 07-10-00079-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
MARCH 23, 2010
IN RE JOHNNY HINOJOS LUNA, RELATOR
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Johnny Hinojos Luna, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus
requesting this Court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, the Honorable
Ana Estevez, to vacate a judgment entered in cause number 33548-C. We deny the
petition.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3 identifies the requirements for a petition
for writ of mandamus filed in this Court. Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) provides that the appendix
to a petition for writ of mandamus must contain a certified or sworn copy of any order
complained of or any other document showing the matter complained of. Luna has
appended only an unsworn and non-certified copy of the judgment entered against him
in cause number 33548-C. Luna has not appended a copy of any order denying his
motion to set aside and vacate the judgment in cause number 33548-C. As Luna’s
request for mandamus relief relates to the denial of Luna’s motion, rather than the
underlying judgment, he has failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 52.3.
However, Luna’s petition is inconsistent. In the first paragraph, he complains that
Judge Estevez refuses to rule on his motion. However, his statement of facts indicates
that Judge Estevez “promptly denied” the motion. To the extent that Luna’s petition is
premised on the trial court’s refusal to rule on his motion, the trial court is afforded a
reasonable time in which to perform this ministerial duty. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d
424, 426 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). Whether the trial court
has failed to act within a reasonable time is dependent upon the circumstances of the
case. Id. To establish entitlement to mandamus relief, the relator must establish that
the trial court had a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act, relator made demand
for performance, and the court refused to perform. Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843,
846 (Tex. 1979). Luna has failed to show that he made an appropriate demand for
performance and, consequently, cannot show that the trial court refused to perform. A
court is not required to consider a motion not called to its attention. Metzger v. Sebek,
892 S.W.2d 20, 49 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied).
Further, while a trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on motions
properly filed and pending before the court, the court is afforded a reasonable time in
which to perform its ministerial duty. Safety-Kleen Corp., 945 S.W.2d at 269. Whether
a reasonable time has lapsed depends on the facts of each case. Barnes, 832 S.W.2d
at 426. Factors relevant in determining whether a reasonable time has lapsed include
whether the trial court had actual knowledge of the motion, its overt refusal to act, the
2
state of its docket, and other judicial and administrative duties which must be addressed
first. In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 711 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding).
As addressed above, nothing in the record before us establishes that Luna=s motion
was ever brought to the attention of the trial court. Further, no overt refusal to act is
shown, no evidence of the state of the trial court=s docket is provided, and there is no
evidence of whether the trial court must afford other judicial or administrative duties
priority. It is the burden of the party requesting relief to provide a record sufficient to
establish his entitlement to mandamus relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,
837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex.App.--Amarillo
2001, orig. proceeding).
While the above is sufficient to justify denial of Luna’s petition, in the interest of
judicial economy, we will briefly address certain aspects of Luna’s petition. Luna
contends that, in 1995, the punishment he received in cause number 33548-C was void
because it was entered without Luna expressly waiving his right to have punishment
assessed by a jury. Generally, the judge is responsible for assessing punishment after
a finding of guilty is returned unless either the defendant has filed a sworn motion for
community supervision before the trial began in a case in which community supervision
may be recommended or the defendant has made a written election to have the jury
assess punishment before commencement of voir dire of the jury panel. TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 37.07, § 2(b) (Vernon Supp. 2009). Luna has failed to provide
any evidence that either of these exceptions applied to his case. Further, the judgment
provides that Luna waived his right to a jury in cause number 33548-C and that the
3
sentence was the result of a plea bargain agreement that was accepted by the trial
court.
Further, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is unavailable when
adequate remedies are available at law. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839. Luna has wholly
failed to identify why this issue was not raised during his direct appeal of this action or
how it was not capable of being presented at that time. Since it appears that Luna
could have obtained redress by way of ordinary appeal, as a result, he has failed to
establish his entitlement to mandamus relief.
For the foregoing reasons, Luna=s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
4