In re Matthew Paul Surber Appeal from 2nd 25th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-18-00814-CR IN RE Matthew Paul SURBER Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 7, 2018 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining the trial court has refused to rule on his motion for nunc pro tunc requesting jail-time credit. 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 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13-0772-CR-A #4, styled The State of Texas v. Matthew Paul Surber, pending in the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable W.C. Kirkendall presiding. 1 04-18-00814-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”). In a case such as this one, a relator has the burden to provide the court of appeals with a record showing the trial court was made aware of the motion at issue and that such motion has not been ruled on by the trial court for an unreasonable period of time. See In re Gallardo, 269 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, orig. proceeding). Attached to relator’s petition is a copy of a May 4, 2018 file-stamped copy of relator’s Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc. However, the mandamus record does not contain copies of any letters sent to the trial court or the appropriate court coordinator asking the trial court to rule on his pending motion. Relator must show the matter was brought to the attention of the trial court. In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); see also In re Bonds, 57 S.W.3d 456, 457 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, orig. proceeding) (conditionally granting petition for writ of mandamus where record reflected relator filed motion and called motion to court’s attention by letter). “Merely filing the matter with the district clerk is not sufficient to impute knowledge of the pending pleading to the trial court.” Hearn, 137 S.W.3d at 685. Because relator has not demonstrated the trial court is aware of his pending motion, we must deny his petition. PER CURIAM Do not publish -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.
