in Re: Gentry S. Leonard

DENIED and Opinion Filed May 20, 2019
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00520-CV
No. 05-19-00521-CV
IN RE GENTRY S. LEONARD, Relator
Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. M18-62976-I & M18-62478-I
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Reichek
Opinion by Justice Reichek
In this original proceeding, relator seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to rule
on his (1) motion for a speedy trial, (2) motion to quash and dismiss, (3) motion to suppress, and
(4) pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus purportedly filed below. We deny the petition.
To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that the
trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel.
Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). As the party seeking
relief, the relator has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to
establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding). Rules 52.3 and 52.7 require the relator to provide “a certified or sworn copy” of
certain documents, including any order complained of, any other document showing the matter
complained of, and every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed
in any underlying proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1).
Here, the mandamus record does not include certified or sworn copies of the motions and
habeas application and does not include certified or sworn copies of the trial court’s docket sheet
or other proof that establishes relator filed the motions and habeas application, requested a hearing
and/or ruling on the motions and application, and the trial court has failed to act on relator’s
requests within a reasonable time. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(a), 52.7(a). The record is insufficient
to establish that the motions and habeas application were properly filed and timely presented and
that the trial court was asked to rule but failed to do so within a reasonable time. As such, relator
has not established a violation of a ministerial duty and is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the
court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).
/Amanda L. Reichek/
AMANDA L. REICHEK
JUSTICE
190520F.P05
–2–