in Re Robert James Campbell
Opinion
Opinion issued September 1, 2020.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
orig. proceeding). To be entitled to relief in a criminal case, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law and that the act he seeks to compel is ministerial. See In re Mendoza, 467 S.W.3d 76, 78 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding). To establish his entitlement to mandamus relief for the trial court’s alleged failure to rule, Campbell must establish a legal duty to perform a nondiscretionary act, that he demanded performance, and that the trial court refused the request. See id.
Campbell has not provided a record sufficient to show his entitlement to relief.
The attachment to his petition appears to be a copy of a request for a nunc pro tunc, but it contains no file stamp establishing that it was filed in the trial court. Absent proof of a properly-filed motion, a demand for performance, and a refusal by the trial court, Campbell has not established his entitlement to relief for the failure to rule. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k); 52.7(a).
We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Countiss. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
in Re Robert James Campbell (in Re Robert James Campbell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.