## NUMBER 13 - 2 2 - 00 53 2 - C R COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE MICKEY WAYNE BOSWELL
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina 1 On November 1, 2022, relator Mickey Wayne Boswell f iled a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to vacate a judgment nunc pro tunc signed on March 2, 2011 , in trial court cause number 09
- CR
- 1082
- G in the 319 th District Court
o f Nueces County, Texas. Relator contends that the judgment nunc pro tunc is illegal and

1 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

violates his due process rights. 2 Relator has previously filed a direct appeal from this
same trial court cause number

. See Boswell v. State , No s . 13
- 11
- 00785
- CR , 13
- 11
- 00786
- CR, & 13
- 11
- 00791
- CR , 2015 WL 5655823, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg Sept. 24, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). In a criminal case, t o be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must est ablish both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm. See In re Meza , 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding); In re Harris , 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); 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) (orig. proceeding). It is the relator ’ s burden to properly reque st and show entitlement to mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young , 236 S.W.3d at 210; In re Pena , 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 19 92, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) ( “ 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

2 To the extent that relator’s petition for writ of mandamus could be construed as a n application for writ o f habeas corpus, we note that the intermediate appellate courts lack jurisdiction to grant writs of habeas corpus in criminal cases. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.221(d) ; Ex parte Braswell , 630 S.W.3d 600, 601

– 02 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2021, orig. proceeding); In re Quinata , 538 S.W.3d 120, 120

– 21 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2017, orig. proceeding); In re Ayers , 515 S.W.3d 356, 356

– 57 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).3

of facts and a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record . See generally T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.3 (governing the form and contents for a petition). Further, the relator must file an appendix and 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) (specifyi ng 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 relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. Therefore, we deny the peti tion for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 52.8 (a) , (d)

. JAIME TIJERINA Justice Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2 ( b ). Delivered and filed on the 7t h day of November , 202 2

.