in Re Ivo Nabelek

Opinion

Petitions for Writ of Mandamus Denied in Part, and Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction in Part, and Memorandum Opinion filed August 28, 2008

Petitions for Writ of Mandamus Denied in Part, and Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction in Part, and Memorandum Opinion filed August 28, 2008.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00764 -CV

NO. 14-08-00767 -CV

IN RE IVO NABELEK, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

On August 15, 2008, relator Ivo Nabelek filed two petitions for writ of mandamus arising from two 1994 criminal convictions.  See Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 22.221(b) (Vernon 2004); Tex. R. App. P. 52.  Relator identifies the respondents as the Honorable Debbie Mantooth Stricklin, presiding judge of the 180th Judicial District Court of Harris County, and the Harris County District Clerk, Theresa Chang.  Relator has not demonstrated that the petition was served on the respondents or the real party in interest, who was identified as the Harris County District Attorney.  See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5.  We decline to issue mandamus relief.

We do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district or county clerk unless a writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.  See Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 22.221; In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding).  Relator has not demonstrated that a writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction, and we therefore dismiss, for want of jurisdiction, the portions of relator=s mandamus petition directed at Ms. Chang.

We construe the remainder of relator=s petition as a request that we issue a writ of mandamus to require the trial judge to rule on two pending motions that, according to relator, were mailed on June 20, 2008.  A trial court has a reasonable time to perform the ministerial duty of considering and ruling on a motion that was properly filed and presented to the court.  See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.CAmarillo 2001, orig. proceeding).  There is no bright-line demarcation of what constitutes a Areasonable time@ and, in fact, this determination rests upon the particular circumstances of the case and a Amyriad of criteria.@  See id. at 228B29.

Relator has failed to file a mandamus record.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7.  The absence of a record prevents us from evaluating the circumstances of this case and, consequently, the merits of relator=s complaints.  See id. at 229; Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).  We therefore must conclude that relator has not demonstrated his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus.     Accordingly, we deny the petitions for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Petition Denied in Part, and Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction in Part, and Memorandum Opinion filed, August 28, 2008.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Seymore, and Boyce.