Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00047-CR IN RE Mark Anthony SANTOS, Relator Original Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 26, 2025 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED Relator has filed a four-page handwritten petition for writ of mandamus regarding (1) the trial court’s purported failure to rule on his “Motion to Reverse Magistrate Judge Finding of Probable Cause” and other unspecified motions, (2) the purported existence of various due process violations occurring in the Bexar County Jail, and (3) purported prosecutorial misconduct. The petition is not accompanied by any appendix or other documents.

Relator has the burden to show his entitlement to the relief requested. See In re Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494–95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). To the extent relator is complaining of an act or decision of the trial court, then the record accompanying his petition must include a certified or sworn copy of (1) the order about which he complains or (2) other documents

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2024CR010402, styled State v. Mark Anthony Santos, pending in the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Kristina Escalona presiding.

04-25-00047-CR

showing the matter about which he complains. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). The petition does not show any motion was presented to the trial court and does not show how long any such motions were pending before the trial court. The mandamus record does not otherwise contain any order or action being challenged.

We hold relator has failed to show that he is entitled mandamus relief. See In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (corrected op., per curiam) (denying relief when trial court motion was pending more than 10 days, mandamus record did not contain sufficient information to support allegations in relator's petition, and there was no indication the motion was presented to the trial court). We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-