Court Opinion

ID: 9351605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-02 00:09:41.186377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:01:01.190985
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00577-CR

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                         IN RE ROBERT ALLEN SATTERFIELD

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

        On December 1, 2022, Robert Allen Satterfield filed a petition for writ of mandamus

seeking to compel the trial court to allow certain discovery, including testing and analysis

of DNA samples and ballistics evidence.

        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

        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).
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;

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,

the response filed by the State of Texas, and relator’s reply, is of the opinion that relator

has not met his burden to obtain relief. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d at 388; State ex rel.

Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary

relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). We deny the petition for writ of

mandamus. Given our disposition of this original proceeding, we dismiss as moot the

State’s “Motion to Access Sealed Record or Alternative Motion to Strike Record” and

“Motion to Suspend the Rules of Appellate Procedure to Expedite this Proceeding.”

                                                                DORI CONTRERAS
                                                                Chief Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the
29th day of December, 2022.

                                             2