### NUMBER S 13 - 1 8 - 00375 - CR & 13 - 18 - 00376 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE JIMMY RAY MADRIGAL
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides 1 On July 11 , 2018 , Jimmy Ray Madrigal filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Zenaida Silva , the District Clerk of Bee County, Texas, to transmit copies of “motion to enter nunc pro tunc, petition for expunction of record, motion for transcript and records , ” and any letters relating to cause numbers R
- 93
- 2147
- 0
- CR
- B and B
- 93
- 2148
- 1
- CR
- B in the 1 56th District Court of Bee County, Texas to the Texas Court

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

of Criminal Appeals

. Relator argues tha t the district clerk has a ministerial duty to perform this duty pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P RO C
. A NN
. art. 11.07 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S. ). 2 We d ismiss th ese original proceeding s for lack of jurisdiction

. I. S TANDARD OF R EVIEW To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has no adequate remedy at law to r edress 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 App s. at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). I t is the relator ’ s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ( “ Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitle d to the extraordinary relief he seeks. ” ). 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 argum ent 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. The relator must furnish an appendix or record

2 Relator’s request s for relief regarding trial court cause number s R
- 93
- 2147
- 0
- CR
- B and B
- 93
- 2148
- 1
- CR
- B were docketed respectively in our cause numbers 13
- 18
- 00375
- CR and 13
- 18
- 00376
- CR. In the interests of judicial efficiency, we address these original proceedings together in this memorandum opinion.3

sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52 .3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); id. R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record). II . J URISDICTION Article V, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution specifies the appellate jurisdiction of the courts of appeals, and states that the courts of appeals “ shall have such other jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law

. ” T EX
. C ONST
. art. V, § 6. T his Court ’ s original jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.221 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S. ) ; see also In re Cook

, 394 S.W.3d 668 , 671 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2012 , orig. proceeding )

. In pertinent part, t his section provides that we may issue writs of mandamus and “ all other writs neces sary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court. ” I d . § 22.221 (a). Th is section also provides that we may issue writs of mandamus against “ a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals ’ district ” or against a “ judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry . . . in the court of appeals district. ” See id . § 22.221(b). R elator ’ s petition seek s mandamus relief against the District Clerk of Bee County

. However, we do not have original jurisdiction against a district clerk unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction, and relator has not demonstrated that the requested relief is necessary for this purpose. See generally id. § 22.221; In re Richardson , 327 S.W.3d 848, 851 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2010, orig. proceeding); In re Phillips , 296 S.W.3d 682, 684 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2009, orig. proceeding); In re Washington , 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). Further , w e have no jurisdiction4

to grant the relie f requested by r elator with respect to a pending Article 11.07 writ. See Padieu v. Ct

. of App s. of Tex. , Fifth Dist ., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117

– 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding) (delineating the limited jurisdiction possessed by intermediate appellat e courts pertaining to article 11.07 applicatio ns for writs of habeas corpus); see also T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11.07; In re Madrigal , No. 11

– 17

– 00093

– CR, 20 17 WL 1453807, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Eastland Apr. 20, 2017, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem . op., not designated for publication)

. If an applicant finds it necessary to complain about the processing of an article 11.07 application for writ of habeas corpus, the applicant may seek mandamus relief directly from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

. See, e.g., Benson v. Dist. Clerk , 331 S.W.3d 431 , 432

– 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (per curiam) ; Gibson v. Dallas Cty. Dist. Clerk , 275 S.W.3d 491 , 491

– 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (per curiam) ; see also In re Watson , 253 S.W.3d 319, 320 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2 008, orig. proceeding). III . C ONCLUSION 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 established this Court ’ s jurisdiction over the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. GINA M. BENAVIDES , J u s t i c e Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). D elivered and filed the 1 2 t h day of July , 2018

.