Court Opinion

ID: 9900042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 18:10:36.095433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:59.103422
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00494-CR

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                 IN RE FRANCISCO PEREZ

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina
                  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

        Pro se relator Francisco Perez filed a petition for writ of mandamus reasserting

claims made in a separate original proceeding and raising additional claims regarding the

ineffective assistance of counsel. See In re Perez, No. 13-23-00394-CR, 2023 WL

5918106, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Sept. 11, 2023, orig. proceeding)

         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).
(mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing Perez’s petition for writ of

mandamus against the district clerk for lack of jurisdiction); see also Perez v. State, No.

13-23-00079-CR, 2023 WL 3116760, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 27,

2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing Perez’s appeal

because the trial court’s certification failed to show the right to appeal).

       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.”). 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.

Further, the relator must file a record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief.

                                              2
See id. R. 52.7(a); In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2021, orig. proceeding); In re Rangel, 570 S.W.3d 968, 969 (Tex. App.—Waco 2019, orig.

proceeding).

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

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

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                                NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                                Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the
17th day of November, 2023.

                                             3