Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
in Re Eliseo Sanchez
Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-11-00553-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 30, 2011; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Elisco Sanchez filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on August 26, 2011, asserting that the trial court failed to rule on his "Motion to Enter Judgment and Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc," which he claims to have submitted on August 19, 2011. He argues that the delay has impaired his defense against the charges he faces and seeks a writ to compel the trial court to act on his motion. To succeed in his mandamus request, Sanchez must demonstrate that he lacks an adequate legal remedy and that the act he seeks to compel is ministerial, not discretionary. He carries the burden to provide a statement of facts supported by citations to competent evidence and must include a sufficient appendix or record. The court must rule on a properly filed motion within a reasonable time, with the definition of "reasonable time" depending on factors such as the trial court's knowledge of the motion and the court's docket. For mandamus relief, Sanchez must prove that his motion was properly filed, pending for a reasonable time, that he requested a ruling, and that the trial court refused to act. Merely filing the motion does not prove that it was brought to the court's attention. The Court reviewed the petition for a writ of mandamus and determined that the relator failed to meet the necessary criteria for relief. Specifically, the relator did not submit a record or appendix showing that he filed the motion with the trial court or requested the court to rule on it, violating Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(1), which mandates the inclusion of all material documents. Additionally, the relator did not provide any legal authority or evidence to demonstrate that the trial court's delay in ruling was unreasonable. Even if the allegations were accepted as true, the Court noted it would not compel the trial court to decide the motion in any specific manner. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus was denied, and the ruling was filed on August 30, 2011. The Court indicated that while it could issue an opinion when denying relief, it was not obligated to do so.