Court Opinion

ID: 9906467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-02 18:11:13.302507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:26.558364
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00523-CR

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                 IN RE JOHN VALENZUELA

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                     Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña
                     Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1

        On November 27, 2023, John Valenzuela filed a pro se pleading in this Court

“[p]etitioning or requesting a new appeal.” This Court previously affirmed Valenzuela’s

conviction for aggravated assault against a public servant. See Valenzuela v. State, No.

13-21-00389-CR, 2023 WL 4499881, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 13,

2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Because our jurisdiction over

        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).
the appeal has expired, and Valenzuela seeks to compel officials to perform certain

actions, we liberally construe his new 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 (describing the requirements

for 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.”). In his pleading, Valenzuela raises

complaints regarding his trial counsel, the trial court judge, members of the district

attorney’s office, his appointed appellate counsel, and the panel of appellate justices on

this Court that affirmed his conviction.

       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). It is the relator’s burden to properly request

and show entitlement to mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210;

see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992,

                                             2
orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must

show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”); see generally TEX. R. APP. P.

52.3, 52.7(a); In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021,

orig. proceeding).

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

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that Valenzuela has not met his burden to obtain

relief. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d at 388. Mandamus is not necessary to enforce our

appellate jurisdiction, and we lack mandamus jurisdiction over many of the individuals

identified in Valenzuela’s pleading. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b), (c).

Further, to the extent that Valenzuela assails actions taken by members of this Court in

connection with his direct appeal, we consider his pleading to have been improvidently

filed in this Court. Finally, we note that the exclusive method for a collateral attack on a

final felony conviction is through a writ of habeas corpus filed with the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; Ater v. Eighth Ct. of Apps.,

802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (“We are the only court

with jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings.”); see also Calton v. Schiller,

498 S.W.3d 247, 252 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. denied). We deny the petition for

writ of mandamus.

                                                                        JAIME TIJERINA
                                                                        Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
28th day of November, 2023.

                                              3