Court Opinion

ID: 9895128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-04 17:11:14.963249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:14.946790
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00459-CR

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                      IN RE EUSTORGIO GUZMAN RESENDEZ

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

        Proceeding pro se, relator Eustorgio Guzman Resendez filed a petition for writ of

mandamus seeking to vacate various orders and a judgment on grounds that the trial

court “was without authority to preside over . . . this case.” Relator’s contentions concern

         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).
matters related to his 1992 conviction for capital murder. 2 Relator has further filed a

motion for leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus.

        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).

        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.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Further, as previously noted,

relator filed a motion for leave to file this original proceeding. Although a motion for leave

is required to file original proceedings in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX.

R. APP. P. 72.1, a motion for leave is not required to file original proceedings in the

intermediate appellate courts. See id. R. 52 & cmt.; In re Fields, 619 S.W.3d 394, 394

(Tex. App.—Waco 2021, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see also In re Simmons, No. 13-

          2 See Resendez v. State, 860 S.W.2d 605, 606 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1993, pet.

ref'd) (affirming relator’s conviction on direct appeal); see also In re Resendez, No. 13-20-00433-CR, 2020
WL 6278290, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Oct. 27, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (collecting related cases).

                                                    2
23-00217-CR, 2023 WL 3688028, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 26,

2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We thus dismiss the

motion for leave as moot.

                                                            NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                            Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
30th day of October, 2023.

                                          3