Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-15-2021
Case Style:
In re Eric J. Brown
Case Number: 04-20-00614-CR
Judge: PER CURIAM
Court: Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
Plaintiff's Attorney: Audrey Gossett Louis
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
San Antonio, Texas - Criminal defense attorney represented Eric J. Brown with a charge.
On December 31, 2020, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he
asserts the trial court has failed to rule on his “Motion for Removal of State’s VR-17 (visitor
restriction).”
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
1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 15-02-0067-CRW, styled State of Texas v. Eric J. Brown, in the 81st Judicial
District Court, Wilson County, Texas, the Honorable Lynn Ellison presiding.
04-20-00614-CR
- 2 -
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 did not provide this court with a copy of the motion he claims the trial court
has failed to rule upon or any proof indicating the trial court is aware of the motion or has failed
to rule for an unreasonable period of time. Because relator did not provide this court with a
sufficient record, relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief.
Outcome: Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. We deny as moot relator’s request for leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus because leave is not required to file a mandamus petition in an intermediate appellate court.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: