IN RE JOSE VILLELA--Appeal from 319th District Court of Nueces County (per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-11-00623-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE JOSE VILLELA On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1 Relator, Jose Villela, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus alleging that the Honorable Tom Greenwell, presiding judge of the 319th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, abused his discretion by failing to rule on a Petition for Factual Records and a DNA Motion filed by relator. For purposes of establishing that the trial court has abused its discretion in failing to rule on a motion, the complainant must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ( When denying [mandamus] relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ). duty to perform a nondiscretionary act, (2) was asked to perform the act, and (3) failed or refused to do so. In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding); see In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Relator asserts that more than ninety days have passed since he filed the subject motions. However, relator has not provided us with a record establishing that his motions were properly filed, or that the trial court was asked and failed to rule on them. Without such a record, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion. See In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d at 886; In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228. Having reviewed and fully considered relator s petition, this Court is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief requested and that the petition should be denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Accordingly, relator s petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. PER CURIAM Do Not Publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 18th day of October, 2011. 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.