DENY; and Opinion Filed December 14, 2016.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-16-01403-CV

IN RE ISRAEL CALLERO MENDEZ, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-00914-N

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers

Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Relator has not established 

his right to mandamus relief.

In 2008, relator was indicted, convicted, and given a mandatory life sentence without 

parole for capital murder in trial court cause number F08-59468. In 2010, relator was indicted 

for an aggravated assault allegedly committed during the same 2008 robbery from which his 

capital murder conviction arose. The aggravated assault indictment was docketed as cause 

number F10-00914. This Court affirmed relator’s capital murder conviction. See Mendez v. 

State, 05-10-01461-CR, 2012 WL 1344722, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 18, 2012, pet. ref’d). 

Relator has since filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, all of which have 

been denied. In this original proceeding relator asks this Court to order the trial court to provide 

him with “the papers in cause # F10-00914” in order to show that the aggravated assault 

indictment should have been part of the appellate record in the capital murder case. 
–2–

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure have specific requirements for the form and 

contents of a petition for writ of mandamus. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Relator’s petition is not 

properly certified and does not include an appendix containing a certified or sworn copy of every 

document that is material to his claim for relief. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j),(k), 52.7(a)(1). Because 

the mandamus record does not include relator’s pleadings in the trial court, the mandamus record 

in this case is insufficient to determine whether relator has filed a pending petition for writ of 

habeas corpus and seeks documents in conjunction with a pending petition, or whether relator is 

simply seeking documents to prepare for the filing of a future petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

This distinction is critical because it determines whether the Court has jurisdiction over the 

petition for writ of mandamus. Compare Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (in granting writ of mandamus to vacate judgment of 

conviction, court of appeals usurped exclusive authority of court of criminal appeals to grant 

post-conviction relief by writ of habeas corpus) with Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth 

Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding) (absent pending 

application for habeas corpus filed under Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 

appellate court has jurisdiction to rule on a mandamus petition requesting access to material that 

could be used in future habeas application). 

Because relator has failed to comply with the requirements of rule 52, he has failed to 

show he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8.

161403F.P05

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE