### 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. 03-12-00621- CV

In re Mic hael Craig De Lor iea

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM H AY S CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator, Michae l Cra ig De L oriea , has filed a pro se petition f or writ of mandamus, asking this Court to compel the trial court to act on his application for habea s corpus relief challeng ing his misdemeanor conviction for DWI

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); Tex. R. App. P . 52. We deny the petition. Mandamus relief is an ex t ra o rd i n ary reme dy

. In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. , 235 S.W .3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig

. proce eding ); In re Braswell , 31 0 S

. W

. 3 d 1 6 5 , 166 (Tex. App.—Amar illo 2010 , o ri g. proce eding ). To obtain mandamus relief i n a criminal case , a relator
must establi s h t h at : (1 ) he has no other adequate leg al reme dy to redr ess the alleg ed harm, and (2) under the re l ev an t fa ct s and law, the act soug ht to be compelled is purely minist eria l, not involving a disc re t i o nary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Y oung v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals , 236 S.W .3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 0 0 7 ) (o rig

. proce eding ). I f the rela tor fails to satisfy either prong , relief should be denied. Id. An act is minist eria l if it does n o t i n v o l v e t he

ex er ci s e o f any discretion and the rela tor has a clea r rig ht to relief

. State ex rel. Hill v. Cour t o f Appeals for Fifth Dist. , 34 S.W .3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig

. proce eding ); In re Daisy ,156 S.W .3d 922, 924 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, orig

. proce eding ). The relief soug ht must be clea r and indisputable, such that its merits are bey ond dispute. See State ex rel. Hill , 34 S.W .3d at 927-28; Daisy , 156 S.W .3d at 924.

I t is rela tor’s burden to pr operly reque st and show entitlement to ma ndamus relief

. W a l ker v. Packer , 827 S.W .2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); In re Davidson , 153 S.W .3d 490, 491 (Te x . App.—Amarillo 2004, orig

. proce eding ); see Barnes v. State , 832 S.W .2d 424, 4 2 6 (T ex . App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig

. proce eding ) (“Eve n a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus
must show himself entitled to the ex traordina ry relief he seeks.”). I n t h i s re gard, the relator m ust provide the r eviewing court with a r ecor d sufficie nt to establish his right to mandamus re lief. See W alker , 827 S.W .2d at 837; Blakene y , 254 S.W .3d at 661; 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 the require d contents for

the appe ndix ), 52.7(a ) (spe cify ing the require d contents for the re cord)

. De L oriea ’s petition for wr it of mandamus does not re flec t, as an a ttachment to the petition for mandamus or a s a fili ng in connec tion with the petit ion, a certified sworn copy of any document. We are not furnished a copy of the habea s corpus application itself nor are we provided any documents or a rec ord showing that the application for writ of hab ea s corpus was filed. De L oriea asser

ts in his petition that he mailed the application to the County Court at L aw No. 2 of Hay s County , Texas an d m ai l ed subsequent follow-up letters to the court’s cler k. Howeve r, he provides no evidenc e that the application or subs equent letters wer e rec eived by or filed with the

co u rt
. Be cause there is no rec ord evidenc e apar t from De L oriea ’s own acc ount of the events

2re fl ecting that the attempt to file the habea s corpus application was made, he has faile d t o s h o w

entitlement to mandamus relief . Acc ording ly , we de ny

the petition for wr it of mandamus.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in Filed: Oc tober 12, 2012

3