in Re Lawrence Collins, Jr.

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re Lawrence Collins, Jr.

DecidedJanuary 23, 2002

Docket04-02-00004-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in Re Lawrence Collins, Jr. (in Re Lawrence Collins, Jr.) 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 Lawrence Collins, Jr., (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 04-02-00004-CV

In re Lawrence COLLINS, Jr., Original Mandamus Proceeding Arising from the 45th District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1999-CI-15915

Honorable Carol R. Haberman, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 23, 2002

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On January 3, 2002, relator filed a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus. That motion is GRANTED. On the same date, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he asks this court to direct Judge Haberman to set his case for trial and rule on various motions he contends he filed throughout 1999 and into 2001.

A trial court is required to consider and rule upon a motion within a reasonable time. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is a ministerial act, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial judge to act. Id. However, relator has not provided this court with copies of his motions, a copy of the trial court's docket, or any other proof that he filed these motions and that they are pending before the trial court. It is the relator's burden to provide this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992).

Because relator has not met his burden of providing a record establishing that a properly filed motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable time, he has not provided the court with grounds to usurp the trial court's inherent authority to control its own docket. Therefore, this court has determined that relator is not entitled to the relief sought, and the petition is DENIED. Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

No. 04-02-00004-CV

In re Lawrence COLLINS, Jr., Original Mandamus Proceeding Arising from the 45th District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1999-CI-15915

Honorable Carol R. Haberman, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 23, 2002

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On January 3, 2002, relator filed a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus. That motion is GRANTED. On the same date, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he asks this court to direct Judge Haberman to set his case for trial and rule on various motions he contends he filed throughout 1999 and into 2001.

A trial court is required to consider and rule upon a motion within a reasonable time. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is a ministerial act, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial judge to act. Id. However, relator has not provided this court with copies of his motions, a copy of the trial court's docket, or any other proof that he filed these motions and that they are pending before the trial court. It is the relator's burden to provide this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992).

Because relator has not met his burden of providing a record establishing that a properly filed motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable time, he has not provided the court with grounds to usurp the trial court's inherent authority to control its own docket. Therefore, this court has determined that relator is not entitled to the relief sought, and the petition is DENIED. Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

DO NOT PUBLISH

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in Re Lawrence Collins, Jr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lawrence-collins-jr-texapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack