Court Opinion

ID: 9906466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-02 18:11:12.355119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:26.557177
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00503-CR

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                           IN RE MICKEY WAYNE BOSWELL

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña
            Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1

        Pro se relator Mickey Wayne Boswell has filed a petition for writ of mandamus

seeking to compel the trial court to enter a ruling on relator’s motions for a court of inquiry

and to expand the record with a live evidentiary hearing. Relator’s claims arise from trial

court cause number 10-CR-4228 in the 319th District Court of 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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Relator has previously filed an original proceeding and a direct appeal from this same trial

court cause number. See In re Boswell, No. 13-22-00426-CR, 2022 WL 4494147, at *1

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Sept. 27, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not

designated for publication); Boswell v. State, Nos. 13-11-00785-CR, 13-11-00786-CR, &

13-11-00791-CR, 2015 WL 5655823, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Sept.

24, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., 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). 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,

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).

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

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

                                              2
See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d at 388. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus.

                                                       DORI CONTRERAS
                                                       Chief Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the
29th day of November, 2023.

                                       3