In Re: Levon Denmark--Appeal from of County

Annotate this Case
6-96-028-CV Long Trusts v. Dowd In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-03-00117-CV
______________________________
IN RE: LEVON DENMARK

Original Mandamus Proceeding

 

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

Levon Denmark has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. In that petition, he asks this Court to direct a trial court to respond to his motion for DNA testing filed pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.03-.05 (Vernon Supp. 2003). Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law, and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law. Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex. 1994); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992).

This Court has recently acknowledged that a trial court must consider and rule on a motion brought to its attention within a reasonable amount of time. In re Cash, 99 S.W.3d 286, 288 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Bonds, 57 S.W.3d 456, 457 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2001, orig. proceeding). This includes rulings on motions for DNA testing and the appointment of counsel for the purpose of pursuing DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Cash, 99 S.W.3d at 288; In re Dimas, 88 S.W.3d 349, 351 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding).

In this petition, however, as in his previous petition, Denmark has not provided this Court with any information identifying the trial court about which he complains or copies of any motion filed or any correspondence with the trial court. Unlike his prior petition, this petition states he filed a motion seeking DNA testing on December 19, 2002, and again on May 30, 2003. The date,

standing alone and without context, is insufficient for us to determine that a trial court has abused its discretion. Even if we could do so, we cannot ascertain which trial court he believes has failed to rule.

Denmark has again not provided the information necessary to allow this Court to rule on his petition and thus has not shown himself entitled to relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3.

We deny the petition.

 

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

 

Date Submitted: September 23, 2003

Date Decided: September 24, 2003

 

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.