In re Eustorgio Guzman Resendez Appeal from 229th Judicial District Court of Starr County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-18-00490-CR IN RE Eustorgio Guzman RESENDEZ Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 15, 2018 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining the trial court denied his request for assistance of counsel in relation to his motion for forensic DNA testing. To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on a properly-filed and timely-presented motion. See In re State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). However, a relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring relator to file “a 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 91CR43, styled The State of Texas v. Eustorgio Guzman Resendez, pending in the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas, the Honorable Ana Lisa Garza presiding. 04-18-00490-CR 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”). Here, relator contends his motion “was heard and denied” on August 18, 2016. However, relator did not provide this court with a copy of an order or any document showing the trial court’s ruling. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (“The appendix must contain: (A) a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of . . .”). 2 Because relator did not provide this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. PER CURIAM Do not publish 2 We also note relator filed an appeal with this court raising the same complaint. See appellate cause number 04-1800316-CR. The clerk’s record in that appeal also does not contain any order from the trial court. The trial court docket sheet filed in that appeal indicates a telephonic hearing was conducted on August 8, 2016, and the “court gave [defendants] 7 days to file briefs/caselaw. Court to review case.” -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
