Court Opinion

ID: 9407742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-08 19:09:59.923698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:39.962262
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00274-CR

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                    IN RE STEVEN PEREZ

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                       Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña
                       Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

        Relator Steven Perez, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus

contending that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on relator’s motion

for a hearing regarding post-trial discovery under the Michael Morton Act. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 39.14. Perez was convicted of murder, and this Court upheld his

conviction on direct appeal. See Perez v. State, No. 13-08-00296-CR, 2009 WL 1607811,

        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).
at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 26, 2009, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not

designated for publication). 2 In summary, Perez contends that the State wrongfully

withheld the mental health records of his codefendant, and he seeks a hearing on his

motion to compel this documentation.

        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 id.; In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d

        2  In addition to the direct appeal of his conviction, Perez has filed additional appeals and original
proceedings with this Court. See In re Perez, No. 13-21-00234-CR, 2021 WL 3354184, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 2, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(denying mandamus relief for the failure to rule on a motion); Perez v. State, No. 13-16-00517-CR, 2016
WL 6520184, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Nov. 3, 2016, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated
for publication) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction); In re Perez, Nos. 13-16-00593-CR
& 13-16-00594-CR, 2016 WL 6519109, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Nov. 2, 2016, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (per curiam) (denying relator’s petition for writ of
mandamus seeking orders of acquittal); Perez v. State, No. 13-16-00297-CR, 2016 WL 3548664, at *1
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 23, 2016, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(per curiam) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction); In re Perez, Nos. 13-10-00211-CR & 13-10-00212-
CR, 2010 WL 1509576, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 13, 2010, orig. proceeding) (mem.
op., not designated for publication) (per curiam) (denying relator’s petition for writ of mandamus seeking
release from “illegal confinement”).

                                                      2
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.”).

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

is of the opinion that Perez has failed to meet his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we

deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                               L. ARON PEÑA JR.
                                                               Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
6th day of July, 2023.

                                             3