In re Charles W. Bishop II--Appeal from 379th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-05-00720-CV

IN RE Charles W. BISHOP II

Original Mandamus Proceeding //

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 9, 2005

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Charles W. Bishop II filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court on October 7, 2005, complaining that the trial court has failed to rule on his motion for mandamus relief in a timely manner.

A trial judge has a legal, nondiscretionary duty to consider and rule on properly filed motions within a reasonable time. In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Many factors are relevant to whether a trial court has unnecessarily delayed a ruling, including the trial court s actual knowledge of the motion, its overt refusal to act on it, the state of the court s docket, the court s inherent power to control its docket, and the existence of other judicial and administrative matters which must be addressed. In re Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). The relator has the burden of providing a record establishing that his motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable time. In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 168 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j), 52.7(a).

In this case, Bishop attached a copy of the motion to his mandamus petition, but the motion is not file-stamped. Bishop represents in his petition that the motion was filed with the district clerk on September 5, 2005, but nothing in the record confirms that the motion actually has been filed and is pending before the trial court. Additionally, the record does not show, and Bishop does not represent in his petition, that he has done anything to bring the motion to the trial court s attention or that the trial court overtly refused to act on the motion. Even assuming that the motion has been pending in the trial court for approximately one month, Bishop has not presented a record establishing that this is an unreasonable time to await the disposition of a motion. Accordingly, Bishop s petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM