Court Opinion

ID: 6332332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-04-18 07:15:55.658222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:18.785844
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00169-CR

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                   IN RE MARCUS DOWNIE

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                  Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva
                     Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

        Marcus Downie has filed a pleading which references a previously-disposed

petition for writ of mandamus, see In re Downie, No. 13-22-00130-CR, 2022 WL 981225,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Mar. 31, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication), and which raises generalized contentions regarding, inter

alia, the ineffective assistance of counsel, the failure to rule on pending motions, the

         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).
alleged falsification of police reports, and a “speedy trial” violation. In substance, it

appears that Downie is requesting this Court to grant mandamus relief compelling the trial

court to dismiss Downie’s pending criminal charges.

       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; 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

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

(governing the form and contents for a petition). Further, the relator must file an appendix

and record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k)

                                             2
(specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required

contents for the record).

       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.

Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8.

                                                                 CLARISSA SILVA
                                                                 Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the
14th day of April, 2022.

                                              3