NUMBER 13-17-00608-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE NORBERTO MANZANARES

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez1

On October 27, 2017, relator Norberto Manzanares filed a pro se petition for writ 

of mandamus in the above cause seeking to compel his trial counsel to provide him with 

a complete copy of the attorney-client file which was generated during the course of 

relator’s trial for murder. See Manzanares v. State, No. 13-06-00307-CR, 2008 WL 

5608261, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Apr. 29, 2008, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not 

 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

designated for publication) (affirming relator’s conviction for murder). Relator seeks a 

copy of his file in order to seek collateral review of his conviction and sentence.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has no 

adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel 

is a purely ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. In re Harris, 

491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re McCann, 422 

S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet 

both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. 

State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 

It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus 

relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. 

proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled 

to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements, the relator must 

include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the 

appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the 

contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” 

See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. The relator must furnish an appendix or record 

sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the 

required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the 

record).

A court of appeals may issue writs of mandamus against: (1) a judge of a district, 

statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district; 

(2) a judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under the 
3

code of criminal procedure in the court of appeals district; or (3) an associate judge of a 

district or county court appointed by a judge under the family code in the court of appeals 

district for the judge who appointed the associate judge. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 

22.221(b) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). Further, a court of appeals may issue 

a writ of mandamus that is “necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. § 

22.221(a). 

We do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directed at relator’s former 

counsel because the requested writ neither is against a judge nor is necessary to enforce 

our appellate jurisdiction. See id. § 22.221(a), (b); see also In re Mason, No. 05-16-

01450-CV, 2017 WL 2464688, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 7, 2017, orig. proceeding) 

(mem. op.) (“Unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction, this Court is without jurisdiction 

to issue a writ of mandamus against an attorney.”); In re Cornett, No. 10-16-00023-CR, 

2016 WL 454996, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Feb. 4, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (“As a Court of Appeals, we have no jurisdiction to compel an 

attorney to act except as necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.”). 

No appeal is pending in this case, and relator makes no claim that a writ of 

mandamus is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

 

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

JUSTICE

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

30th day of October, 2017.