Court Opinion

ID: 9365102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 19:22:09.555347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.258075
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00022-CV

                                    COURT OF APPEALS

                        THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                           CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                 IN RE ENRIQUE O. GUILLEN

                             On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva
                Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

        Enrique O. Guillen 2 has filed a pro se pleading in this Court requesting that we

issue “a mandamus order” requiring the trial court to “investigate and hand 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.
47.1 (“The court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that
addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.”); id. R. 47.4 (explaining the
differences between opinions and memorandum opinions).
        2 Enrique O. Guillen is also identified in this pleading as Enrique Ochoa Guillen. Although Guillen
affirmatively seeks relief on his behalf and has signed this pleading, this pleading could also be construed
to request relief on behalf of Victoria Guillen insofar as it refers to “appellants” and “plaintiffs.” We caution
[e]vidence absconded from the record by court [personnel].” Guillen’s requests for relief

mirror those that he has presented by motion and objection in a pending appeal, Enrique

O. Guillen and Victoria Guillen v. Cristian Andres Gomez, filed in our appellate cause

number 13-22-00515-CV. Because Guillen specifically requests mandamus relief and

asks us to command a public officer to perform an act, we resolve his claims in this

pleading in this separate original proceeding. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(a)

(governing the perfection of appeal); In re Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd. P’ship, 189 S.W.3d 400,

403 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding) (“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.”) (citing Boston v. Garrison, 256 S.W.2d 67, 70 (Tex.

1953)); see also Surgitek v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999) (directing courts to

examine the substance of a pleading rather than its form or caption to determine its

nature).

        Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that: (1) the trial

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

against the unauthorized practice of law. See, e.g., TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 81.101–.102 (defining the
unauthorized practice of law); TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 38.123 (explaining that the unauthorized practice of
law constitutes an offense under the penal code); Crain v. The Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. of the
Sup. Ct. of Tex., 11 S.W.3d 328, 332–34 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (stating that a
person who is not a licensed attorney may not represent other persons in legal matters).

                                                       2
839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

       “The relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B.

Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see

Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840; 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.”). In

addition to other requirements, the relator must include a statement of facts and a clear

and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities

and to the appendix or record. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (governing the form

and contents for a petition). Further, the relator must file an appendix and record sufficient

to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required

contents for the appendix); id. R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record).

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

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

relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                                 CLARISSA SILVA
                                                                 Justice

Delivered and filed on the
20th day of January, 2023.

                                                 3