Court Opinion

ID: 9376871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-04 19:08:11.831204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:09.939535
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00086-CR

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                          IN RE HUMBERTO ROSALES CRUZ

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina
                  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

        Relator Humberto Rosales Cruz has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus

seeking relief against the Hidalgo County District Clerk. The exact nature of relator’s

complaint is unclear; however, he appears to have questions regarding a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pending in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Cruz,

No. WR-87,764-03, 2022 WL 14716958, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 26, 2022) (per

         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).
curiam) (order) (not designated for publication).

       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. 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).

       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); see

Powell v. Hocker, 516 S.W.3d 488, 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). 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 the intermediate appellate courts may issue writs of mandamus against specified

judges in our district and “all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.”

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b); see In re State ex rel. Best, 616 S.W.3d 594, 599

& n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (orig. proceeding).

                                               2
       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. We have no

jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against individuals or entities other than those

specified in the government code unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b); see, e.g., In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“We have no

jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless such is necessary

to enforce our jurisdiction.”). Further, to the extent that relator’s contentions may be

construed to concern a pending post-conviction habeas proceeding, we similarly lack

jurisdiction. See Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117–18

(Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding) (indicating that the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction when an article 11.07 application is pending).

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

                                                              NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                              Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
2nd day of March, 2023.

                                            3