Court Opinion

ID: 9966091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-04 18:12:16.946975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:09.133233
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-24-00219-CR

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                   IN RE ALFREDO LOPEZ

                      ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION
                  Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Silva
                  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides1

        Alfredo Lopez, proceeding pro se, has filed a pleading in this Court seeking relief

for various complaints. Lopez does not have a pending appeal in this Court and he does

not reference a final judgment that is subject to appeal or an appealable interlocutory

order. Accordingly, we liberally construe Lopez’s pleading as a petition for writ of

mandamus. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 19.1 (delineating the plenary power of the

appellate courts), 25.2 (governing the perfection of appeal in criminal cases), 52

        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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
(describing the requirements for filing original proceedings); In re Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd.

P’ship, 189 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding [mand. denied])

(“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.”). Lopez

contends, inter alia, that his sentence is void; he is being illegally imprisoned; he is being

denied visitation; he has been incarcerated past his release date; he has been injured but

was not provided with medical care; he has been given rat poison “a few times”; and

prison employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) have beaten him.

       In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish

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. See 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

request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. See id.; 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.] 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.”). The relator bears the burden to provide a sufficient record

                                              2
to establish the right to mandamus relief. In re Schreck, 642 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 2022, orig. proceeding); In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d at 839.

       Article V, § 6 of the Texas Constitution delineates 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.” TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6(a). The main

source of original jurisdiction for the courts of appeals is provided by § 22.221 of the Texas

Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221; In re Cook, 394 S.W.3d 668,

671 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, orig. proceeding). In pertinent part, this section provides that

an intermediate appellate court may issue writs of mandamus against specified judges in

its district and “all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” TEX. GOV’T

CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b).

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

is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this original proceeding. Relator’s

complaints regarding his conviction and sentence stem from trial court cause number

2020C105739 in the 37th District Court of Bexar County, Texas. However, Bexar County

is not located within the geographic district for the Thirteenth Court of Appeals and is

instead located within the geographic district for the Fourth Court of Appeals. See TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(e) (delineating the counties comprising the Fourth Court of

Appeals District); id. § 22.201(n) (delineating the counties comprising the Thirteenth Court

of Appeals District). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to issue a writ against the judge of the 37th

District Court of Bexar County. See id. § 22.221(b); In re Cortez, 415 S.W.3d 903, 904

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Further, Lopez does not

                                               3
contend that mandamus relief is necessary to enforce this Court’s jurisdiction. See TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b); see, e.g., In re Bledsoe, 532 S.W.3d 826, 827 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana 2017, orig. proceeding) (concluding that the court lacked mandamus

jurisdiction over the warden at a unit of TDCJ unless necessary to enforce the court’s

jurisdiction); In re Moody, 93 S.W.3d 928, 929 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig.

proceeding) (concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction against the TDCJ because the

matter “neither implicates a pending appeal nor interferes with our ability to resolve a

matter pending before us”); In re Carson, 12 S.W.3d 886, 887 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

2000, orig. proceeding) (concluding that the court lacked mandamus jurisdiction over the

operating officer of an inmate trust fund); see also In re Hodge, No. 01-21-00504-CV,

2021 WL 4533274, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 5, 2021, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.) (per curiam) (“This Court has no jurisdiction to issue writs against officers at

TDCJ.”). Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for want of

jurisdiction.

                                                               GINA M. BENAVIDES
                                                               Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the
2nd day of May, 2024.

                                            4