Opinion issued May 19, 2011

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NOS. 01-11-00330-CV

          01-11-00337-CV

          01-11-00338-CV

          01-11-00339-CV

———————————

IN RE TRAVIS DAYNE BEGELTON, Relator

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Travis Wayle Begelton, filed in this Court pro se petitions for writs of mandamus asking that we order respondent[1] to 1) rule on relator’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and 2) vacate relator’s juvenile sentence pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 58.003(g)(5). We deny the petitions for writs of mandamus.

A writ of mandamus will issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy at law.    Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding).  If the respondent trial court has a legal duty to perform a nondiscretionary act, the relator must make a demand for performance that the respondent refuses.  Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).  The relator must also provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief.  Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992).

Relator has not provided us with a record that shows he filed any motions or otherwise requested relief from respondent, nor has he included a certified or sworn copy of any orders complained of or any other documents showing the matters complained of.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A).

Therefore, the petitions for writs of mandamus are denied.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Brown.