Court Opinion

ID: 9951871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 14:12:28.252493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:43:20.580966
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                       NO. 03-24-00125-CV

                                         In re Martin Cuellar

                      ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Relator Martin Cuellar, an inmate in the Comal County Jail, has filed

an ambiguously     captioned    pro    se    appellate   submission    with   this   Court    entitled

“Abuse-of-Discretion Review,” complaining of a restitution order entered pursuant to a plea

agreement in cause number CR2023-753B and of ineffective assistance of counsel. Having

reviewed the filing, we treat the submission as a petition for writ of mandamus and deny the

petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

               The petition does not make clear the precise nature of the relief sought nor the

person or persons to whom the requested writs should issue. To the extent Cuellar seeks relief

that is within this Court’s jurisdiction to grant, it is relator’s burden to properly request and show

entitlement to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); In re

Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, 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 this regard, the relator must provide the reviewing court with

a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837;

In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661–62 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding); see

also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every

document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying

proceeding”), 52.7(a) (specifying required contents for record), 52.3(k) (specifying required

contents for appendix).

               Based on his failure to provide any record, we conclude that Cuellar has failed to

show an entitlement to relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and

dismiss the pending motion as moot. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

                                              __________________________________________
                                              Edward Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Filed: March 19, 2024

                                                 2