In re James Striblin Appeal from 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-20-00353-CR IN RE James STRIBLIN Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 29, 2020 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On July 15, 2020, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he asserts the trial court has failed to rule on two motions in his underlying 2016 criminal case. For the reasons stated below, we deny the petition. A trial court clearly abuses its discretion when it fails to rule within a reasonable time on a properly-presented motion. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 1997, 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 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 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2016-CR-8935, styled The State of Texas v. James Striblin, pending in the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jefferson Moore presiding. 1 04-20-00353-CR one, a relator has the burden to provide the court of appeals with a record showing the motion at issue was properly filed, the trial court was made aware of the motion, and the motion has not been ruled on by the trial court for an unreasonable period of time. See In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 167-68 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding). Here, relator provided this court with copies of his motions, one file-stamped April 16, 2020 and the other on or about May 8, 2020. However, relator has not provided proof indicating the trial court is aware of the motions or a record establishing his motions have awaited disposition for an unreasonable time. Because relator did not provide this court with a sufficient record, relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. PER CURIAM Do not publish -2-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.
