In Re George Munoz Jr. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 19, 2025
• Docket: 04-25-00156-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-25-00156-CR

IN RE George MUNOZ Jr.

Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 19, 2025

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On March 7, 2025, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining that the trial

court has refused to rule on his motion for forensic DNA testing. Because relator did not provide

this court with a sufficient record, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show 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). A trial court has a ministerial

duty to rule on a properly-filed and timely-presented motion. See In re State ex rel. Young v. Sixth

Judicial Dist. Ct. App., 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015CR5575, styled State of Texas v. George Munoz Jr., pending in the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Benjamin Robertson presiding. 04-25-00156-CR

However, a relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to

establish his right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring relator to file “a

certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that

was filed in any underlying proceeding”). In a case such as this one, a relator has the burden to

provide the court of appeals with a record showing the motion at issue was properly filed, the trial

court was made aware of the motion, and the motion has not been ruled on by the trial court for an

unreasonable period of time. See In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 167–68 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding).

Here, relator did not provide this court with proof: that his motion was properly filed; that

the trial court is aware of the motion; or that his motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable

period of time. See id. Because relator did not provide this court with a sufficient record, relator

has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus

is denied See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-