in Re: Lee Arthur Wynn

Denied and Opinion Filed July 16, 2018
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00776-CV
IN RE LEE ARTHUR WYNN, Relator
Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 1
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F12-24938H
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Stoddart
Before the Court is relator’s July 6, 2018 petition for writ of mandamus in which he seeks
a writ directing the trial court to hold a hearing on a nunc pro tunc motion purportedly filed by
relator. A trial court has a ministerial duty to rule upon a properly filed and timely presented
motion. State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (orig.
proceeding). To establish entitlement to mandamus relief for a trial court’s refusal to act, the
relator must establish that the trial court had a legal duty to perform a ministerial act, relator made
demand for performance, and the court refused to perform. Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843,
846 (Tex. 1979) (orig. proceeding); In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
2003, 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. Lizcano v.
Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (Alcala, J. concurring);
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
Relator has not met these requirements and is not entitled to mandamus relief. The
mandamus record before us does not include a certified or sworn copy of the trial court’s docket
sheet or other proof that establishes relator filed the complained-of motions, relator requested
either a hearing or a ruling, and the trial court has failed to rule on relator’s motions. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(a), 52.7(a). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
/Craig Stoddart/
CRAIG STODDART
JUSTICE
180776F.P05
–2–