Charles F. Ireland ( 2004 )

Opinion issued November 10, 2004

In The

Court of Appeals

For The  

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-04-00960-CR

____________

IN RE CHARLES FRANKLIN IRELAND, Relator  

---

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Relator, Charles Franklin Ireland, filed in this Court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus asking that we order respondent to conduct a hearing. According to relator’s petition, in cause number 516028, he filed a motion in June 2004 in both the 338th District Court and the Fourteenth Court of Appeals for “DNA Hearing Records to be Checked-Out on Loan to [Relator].” Also according to the petition, both the district court and the appellate court denied the motion in July 2004. As we understand the petition, relator contends that the trial court abused its discretion by not conducting a hearing on his pro se motion for the DNA hearing record.

               A writ of mandamus will issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy at law. Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding). If the respondent trial court has a legal duty to perform a nondiscretionary act, the relator must make a demand for performance that the respondent refuses. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). The relator must also provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992).

               Relator has not met the requirements of Walker v. Packer in that he has not provided us with a record showing that he filed any motions or otherwise requested relief from respondent. In addition, we are not persuaded that the trial court had a duty imposed by law to conduct a hearing before ruling on relator’s motion requesting DNA hearing records, or that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to do so.                Therefore, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.  

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Hanks, and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).