### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00813- CV

In re Mar io Sau cedo, Sr.

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Mario Saucedo, Sr., an inmate in the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice, has filed 1
a docume nt entitled Motion for Leave to File t he Origi nal Application for W rit of Mandamus and Prohibition

. A m otion for leave to file a petition for wr i t o f m an d am u s i s require d when relief is
soug ht from the court of cri m i n al appea ls. See Tex. R. App. P. 72.1. A motion for leave is not require d for such a petition f iled in a n intermediate appellate court. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.1. An orig inal proce eding seeking extraordinary relief in a court of appea ls is commence d by the filing of

a petition. See id. Thus, under the applicable rules, if mandamus relief is s o u gh t from an intermediate court, such as the Third Court of Appea ls, a motion fo r l ea v e t o file the petition is unnece ssary . To the extent that Saucedo’ s document coul d b e re ad as a petition initiating an orig inal appe l l at e proce eding seeking extraordinary relief , see id. , there is simply inadequa te

I t appea rs that Saucedo was convicted in 2002 in Menar d County of three felony offe nses: 1 t wo charg es of ag g rava ted sexual assault of a child for which he rec eived two 12-y ear p ri s o n sentenc es an d indece ncy with a child by sexual contac t for which he rec eived a 10-y ear prison sentenc e.information supplied t o even beg in to addre ss the leg al merits. First, Saucedo does not name a

Respondent, and it is unclea r from the body of the document aga i n s t whom he seeks mandamus relief

. Second, it is difficult t o discern the prec ise nature of S auce do’s complaint. Consequentl y , it is unclear what remedy or re lief he se eks.
At the beginning of t he document, Saucedo appea rs t o be requesting permission to
appea l to this Court and to transfe r and exp ed i t e a “manda mus application” pending in the
Four th Court of Appea ls. He then mention s “a decla ratory judgme nt and a injunction relief for d i s p o s i tion rela ted to merits on all other claims.” Wit hin the document, Saucedo ref ere n ce s a pending 11.07 writ of habea s corpus, a m o t i o n t o fi l e a stay , a motion to extend time for

rec onsideration, and a mot ion for rehea ring “ag ainst the C ourt of C riminal App ea l s , ” as we ll as a motion for nunc pro tunc judgme nt reque sting jail time cre dit, a motion to expunge r ecor ds, and a motion to set aside and quash the indictment. He mentions “excessive and void” sentenc es,“a ctually [si c] innocenc e,” and a “violation of double j eo p ar d y .” He also appea rs to complain about a clemenc y application submitt ed to the Texas Boa rd of Pardons and Paroles. He further asser ts that
h e fi l ed a civil suit in Travis County seeking a hear ing on his reque st for clemenc y and an o rd er requiring the parole board to hold such a hear ing. Saucedo does not, howeve r, supply any nece ssary information i n t h e Mo t i on for Leave to File the Original Application for W rit of Mandamus and Prohibition that would help us deter mine whether he is entitled to any mandamus relief

. Nor does he attac h or fur

nish any documents or r ecor ds of proc eeding s. M an d am u s re lief is an extraordinary reme dy

. In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. , 235 S.W .3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2 0 0 7 ) (o ri g. p roce eding ); In re Braswell , 310 S.W .3d 165, 166 (Tex.

2App.—Amar illo 2010, orig

. proce eding)

. I t is rela tor’s burden to proper ly reque st and

show entitlement to mandamus relief

. W alker v. Pack

er , 827 S.W .2 d 8 3 3 , 837 (Tex. 1992);
In re Davidson , 153 S.W .3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—Amar illo 2004, orig

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

. proce eding ) (“Eve n a pro

se applicant for a wr i t of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.” ). I n this reg ard, t h e rela tor must provide the revie wing court with a rec ord sufficie nt
to establish his rig ht to mandamus relief. S ee W a l ker , 827 S.W .2d at 837; In re Blakene y , 254 S.W .3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig

. proce eding ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) (re lator must file with petition “a cer tified or sworn copy of ever y document that is materia l
to the rela tor’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underly ing proce eding ”), 52.3(k) (spec ify ing require d contents for

appendix), 52.7(a) (spec ify ing r equire d contents for rec ord). Saucedo has failed t o s at i s fy his burden and has not established entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Acc ording ly , trea ting the document Saucedo has filed
as a pe tition for writ of mandamus, it is denied. 2

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice
Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in Filed: January

3, 2013

I n the title of his document, Saucedo ref ers to a “wr it of mandamus and prohibition.” 2 A writ of prohibition issues to preve nt the co m m i s s i o n of a future act. See In re Dacus , 337 S.W .3d 501, 504 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2011, orig

. p ro cee ding) (citing State ex rel. W ade v. Mays , 689 S.W .2d 893, 897 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)). Nowher e in his motion does Saucedo ref er to, disc uss, c omplain a

bout, or seek the preve ntion of any future act. Thus, we do not c onstrue his document as a

petition for writ of pr ohibition. 3