Court Opinion

ID: 3086546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 02:50:39.662163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:51.655210
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-14-00116-CR

                                  COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

                                   IN RE DAVID ALVAREZ

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                  Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes
                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

        Relator, David Alvarez, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on

February 21, 2014, seeking to compel the trial court to withdraw its order denying bond

and to release relator on a personal bond, or in the alternative, to set a reasonable bond.

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN. Art. 44.04 §1 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d

C.S.). The Court requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus

from the real party in interest, the State of Texas, acting by and through the District

Attorney in and for Nueces County, Texas.

        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.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
       To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show: (1) that he has no

adequate remedy at law, and (2) that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act. In re

State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If

the relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus

should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of App. at Texarkana, 236
S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

       A remedy at law, though it technically exists, "may nevertheless be so uncertain,

tedious, burdensome, slow, inconvenient, inappropriate, or ineffective as to be deemed

inadequate." Greenwell v. Ct. of App. for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645, 648–

49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (orig. proceeding). The act sought to be compelled must be a

ministerial act that does not involve a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel.

Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. The ministerial-act requirement is satisfied if the relator can

show a clear right to the relief sought. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d at 122. A

clear right to relief is shown when the facts and circumstances dictate but one rational

decision "under unequivocal, well-settled (i.e., from extant statutory, constitutional, or

case law sources), and clearly controlling legal principles." Bowen v. Carnes, 343 S.W.3d
805, 810 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d at 122.

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

and the response thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain

mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, relator’s

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).

Delivered and filed the
10th day of March, 2014.
                                             2