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 Fredy Alexander Veliz Caal v. the State of Texas
Citation: Not availableDocket: 04-23-00031-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 15, 2023; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, issued a memorandum opinion denying Fredy Alexander Veliz Caal's petition for a writ of mandamus on March 15, 2023. The relator had filed the petition on January 12, 2023, along with an emergency motion to stay the underlying proceedings, which the court partially granted the following day. To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal matter, the relator must demonstrate that the trial court failed to perform a ministerial duty and that there is no adequate remedy at law. The court noted that a trial court is required to rule on properly filed and timely presented motions. However, the relator must provide sufficient evidence to the appellate court that the motion was properly filed, acknowledged by the trial court, and not ruled upon for an unreasonable time. In this case, although the relator provided a file-stamped copy of the habeas corpus application and evidence of efforts to notify the trial court, the record did not show that the trial court had failed to rule on the motion for an unreasonable period. Therefore, the relator did not meet the burden for mandamus relief. The court denied the petition and lifted the stay imposed earlier. Additionally, the relator's assertion that an email from the trial court's coordinator constituted a ruling on his motion for continuance was unsupported by legal authority.