Court Opinion

ID: 2922150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 02:53:01.54791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:14.891329
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-05-597-CR
 
                         COURT OF APPEALS
 
               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
_________________________________________________________________
 
                           IN RE: CARLOS
MARTINEZ
_________________________________________________________________
 
                      On Petition for Writ of
Mandamus _________________________________________________________________
 
                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
 
                   Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Rodriguez 
                            Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion[1]
 

Relator, Carlos
Martinez, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the
above cause on September 16, 2005.  In
his petition, relator complains that the Honorable Mark Kent Ellis of the 351st
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, failed to comply with a July
2, 2004, order of this Court in relator=s appeal of a felony
conviction for possession of a controlled substance.  See generally Martinez v. State, No.
13-03-070-CR, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 7825 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi Aug.
24, 2004, no pet.).  Relator specifically
complains that the trial court failed to enter a certification of his right to
appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).  Relator requests that we order the trial
court to enter the certification or, in the alternative, proceed on the merits
of appellant=s pro se brief as submitted
and filed in his appeal.  
Based on our review of
the record in relator=s appeal, the trial
court did not fail to respond to the Court=s order.  On July 19, 2004, a supplemental clerk=s record was filed
with the Court showing that the trial court entered a certification of relator=s right to
appeal.  See id.  The trial court found that appellant had the
right to appeal.  See Martinez ,
2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 7825, *2.   Further,
we would note that the Court considered and extensively addressed the merits of
the issues raised in appellant=s pro se in brief in
its opinion on the appeal.  See id.  2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 7825, *6-*10.
          The Court, having examined and fully
considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that relator
has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought.  Accordingly, the petition for writ of
mandamus is DENIED.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). 
 
PER CURIAM
 
 
Do not publish. 
Tex. R. App. P.
47.2(b).  
 
Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this 5th day of October, 2005.
 

[1]
See
Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) (AWhen
denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do
so.@); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing
opinions and memorandum opinions).