In Re Robert Joseph Yezak v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 23, 2025
• Docket: 03-25-00306-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00306-CV

In re Robert Joseph Yezak

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Robert Joseph Yezak, an inmate in Bell County, has filed a pro se

appellate submission with this Court entitled “Request for Mandamus Relief or Notice of

Appeal,” complaining of the trial court’s alleged failure or refusal to rule on petitions for habeas

relief and requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law allegedly pending in multiple

causes for more than three months. For the reasons discussed herein, we treat the submission as

a petition for writ of mandamus and deny the petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

When a mandamus petition is based on an allegation that a trial court has failed to

rule on a properly filed motion, the relator must establishes that the trial court: (1) had a legal

duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) either refused to rule on

the motion or failed to rule within a reasonable time. In re Whitfield, No. 03-18-00564-CV,

2018 WL 4140735, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 29, 2018, no pet.) (citing In re Keeter,

134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding)). Here, Yezak asserts that he

filed his motion approximately three months ago. Even if we were to assume that the district court was made aware of the motion at that time, three months does not ordinarily constitute an

unreasonable length of time for a motion to remain pending. Id. (citing In re Blakeney,

254 S.W.3d 659, 662–63 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding)).

Moreover, it is relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to

mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); In re Davidson,

153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State,

832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)

(“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary

relief he seeks”). In this regard, the relator must provide the reviewing court with a record

sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re

Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 661–62; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file with

petition “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”), 52.7(a) (specifying required contents for

record), 52.3(k) (specifying required contents for appendix). Yezak has failed to provide this

Court with a file-stamped copy of the submissions allegedly pending before the trial court, so

there is no way for us to determine when or even if they were filed properly in the court below.

On this record, we conclude that relator has failed to show entitlement to

mandamus relief. Accordingly, his petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P.

52.8(a).

__________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Ellis

Filed: May 23, 2025