NUMBER 13-20-00134-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE PHILLIP GUTHRIE

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1

On March 9, 2020, Phillip Guthrie, proceeding pro se, filed a “Motion to Reform 

Judgment” in this Court. Guthrie contends that the trial court failed to properly award him 

with the correct pre-sentence jail time credit and requests that we direct the trial court to 

correct this alleged error. Because Guthrie’s motion does not reference an order or 

judgment subject to appeal and he asks us to command a public officer to perform an act, 

we construe this pleading as a petition for writ of mandamus. See generally TEX. R. APP.

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

P. 25.1(a), (d); In re Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd. P'ship, 189 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. App.—Tyler 

2006, orig. proceeding) (“The function of the writ of mandamus is to compel action by 

those who by virtue of their official or quasi-official positions are charged with a positive 

duty to act.”) (citing Boston v. Garrison, 152 Tex. 253, 256 S.W.2d 67, 70 (1953)).

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 

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

orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must 

show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”); see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.3; Lizcano v. Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) 

(Alcala, J. concurring). 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 
3

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).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus 

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not met his burden to obtain 

mandamus relief. Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and all relief 

sought therein. 

 JAIME TIJERINA,

 Justice

Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the

12th day of March, 2020.