in Re Jose Villela

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 18, 2011
Docket13-11-00623-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Jose Villela (in Re Jose Villela) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in Re Jose Villela, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-11-00623-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE JOSE VILLELA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relator, Jose Villela, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus alleging that the

Honorable Tom Greenwell, presiding judge of the 319th Judicial District Court of Nueces

County, Texas, abused his discretion by failing to rule on a “Petition for Factual Records”

and a “DNA Motion” filed by relator.

For purposes of establishing that the trial court has abused its discretion in failing

to rule on a motion, the complainant must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying [mandamus] relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”). duty to perform a nondiscretionary act, (2) was asked to perform the act, and (3) failed or

refused to do so. In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig.

proceeding); see In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig.

proceeding).

Relator asserts that more than ninety days have passed since he filed the subject

motions. However, relator has not provided us with a record establishing that his

motions were properly filed, or that the trial court was asked and failed to rule on them.

Without such a record, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion. See

In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d at 886; In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228.

Having reviewed and fully considered relator’s petition, this Court is of the opinion

that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief requested and that the petition

should be denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus is DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 18th day of October, 2011.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Chavez
62 S.W.3d 225 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
In Re Molina
94 S.W.3d 885 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Jose Villela, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jose-villela-texapp-2011.