Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-19-06154/USCOURTS-ca10-19-06154-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Antonio Serrano
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: FRANCISCO ANTONIO

 SERRANO, 

 Movant.

No. 19-6154

(D.C. No. 5:17-CR-00048-F-1)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before MATHESON, KELLY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Francisco Antonio Serrano, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of 

mandamus. He entered a guilty plea to a drug trafficking crime pursuant to a plea 

agreement and he was sentenced to 87 months’ imprisonment. He asserts in his 

mandamus petition that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the negotiation of 

his plea agreement because his attorneys made false representations about what the 

government promised in the plea agreement that did not materialize in court. He seeks an 

order directing the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing to examine the conduct of 

his attorneys in negotiating his plea agreement. 

“[A] writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy, and is to be invoked only in 

extraordinary circumstances.” In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1186 

(10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The extraordinary relief of a writ of 

mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal, and it is not a vehicle to relieve persons of the 

consequences of their previous decision not to pursue available procedures and

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 9, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 19-6154 Document: 010110286023 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 1
2

remedies.” Weston v. Mann (In re Weston), 18 F.3d 860, 864 (10th Cir. 1994). We will 

not issue a writ unless the petitioner shows that he has no other adequate remedy and that 

“his right to the writ is clear and indisputable.” In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 

F.3d at 1187 (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, we “must be satisfied 

[in the exercise of our discretion] that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” 

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Having reviewed Mr. Serrano’s petition, we 

conclude he has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to a writ of mandamus. 

Accordingly, we deny his mandamus petition.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

Appellate Case: 19-6154 Document: 010110286023 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 2