Court Opinion

ID: 9948004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 07:13:13.430035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:53.760700
License: Public Domain

DISMISS IN PART AND DENY IN PART and Opinion Filed March 1, 2024

                                      In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-24-00202-CV

                     IN RE ARTURO MEDRANO, Relator

          Original Proceeding from the 282nd Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. F-1034786

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
        Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Breedlove
                           Opinion by Justice Molberg
      Relator was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child under fourteen

years of age and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. In 2014, this Court

dismissed relator’s appeal because his notice of appeal was untimely. Medrano v.

State, No. 05-14-00129-CR, 2014 WL 1018620, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 4,

2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

       On February 26, 2024, relator filed the instant petition for writ of mandamus,

which identifies the same trial court cause number as his dismissed appeal. Relator

says he was charged with the offense of continuous sexual abuse and asks this Court

to compel the trial court to respond to a Motion to Quash the Indictment and
Prosecution that relator purportedly filed in September 2023. He also asks this Court

to compel the trial court to provide him “with due course and due process of law and

dismiss this case and prosecution.”1

       To the extent relator asks this Court to compel the trial court to dismiss the

case, we dismiss relator’s petition. Relator’s petition is in substance an application

for post-conviction habeas corpus relief as he is attacking the validity of his

conviction. In re Autrey, No. 05-22-01009-CV, 2022 WL 5113123, at *2 *Tex.

App.—Dallas Oct. 5, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Only the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings. TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d); In re

Turcios, No. 05-21-01168-CV, No. 05-21-01169-CV, 2022 WL 202985, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

       To the extent relator asks this Court to compel Judge Chatham to rule on

relator’s motion, we deny relator’s petition. Relator’s petition does not meet the

requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of

mandamus relief. See In re Cantu, No. 05-23-01131-CV, 2023 WL 7871643, at *1

(Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 16, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Relator failed to

certify that he has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement

   1
     Relator names the Honorable Andy Chatham as respondent in this original proceeding. But
we take judicial notice that Judge Chatham no longer presides over the 282nd Judicial District
Court in Dallas County, Texas; the Honorable Amber Givens now presides over that court.
                                            –2–
is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.3(j). Relator also failed to support his petition with a sufficient record or

appendix. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a). Although relator filed some

documents with his petition, none of the documents are sworn or certified copies, as

required by the rules. Further, relator provides some argument, but he does not

provide briefing relevant to a request that we compel a trial court to rule on a pending

motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h). Relator’s petition is also captioned incorrectly

and does not contain a list identifying the parties and counsel, a table of contents, an

index of authorities, a statement of the case, a statement of the issues presented, or a

statement of facts supported by citations to competent evidence included in an

appendix or record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1, 52.3(a)–(c), (d)(1)–(3), (f)–(g).

      Additionally, relator’s petition and appendix contain unredacted sensitive

information, including a minor’s name, in violation of the Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9(a)(3), (b); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a)(3).

Accordingly, we strike relator’s petition and appendix.

                                            /Ken Molberg//
240202f.p05                                 KEN MOLBERG
                                            JUSTICE

                                          –3–