Opinion
NUMBER 13-16-00611-CR
11-14-2016
IN RE ERNESTO BENAVIDES
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum OpinionPer Curiam
Relator Ernesto Benavides, proceeding pro se, filed a "motion requesting mandamus" in the above cause on November 8, 2016. Relator states that he filed a motion to "resolve a breached plea bargain agreement" with the Cameron County District Clerk but has not received notice regarding whether that motion has been resolved. Relator also seeks legal advice from this Court regarding his legal rights to appeal. Relator's petition is unclear regarding whether he seeks relief against the District Clerk or the judge of the trial court. The relator did not furnish an appendix or record to support his request for relief.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel is a purely ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet both of these 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).
It is the relator's burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ("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 supported by citations to "competent evidence included in the appendix or record," and must also provide "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. The relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (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 the relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Moreover, this Court may not provide appellant with legal advice regarding his case. The impartiality of the judiciary is not only a matter of constitutional law, but also of public policy. Rymer v. Lewis, 206 S.W.3d 732, 736 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 39 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied); Ex parte Finn, 615 S.W.2d 293, 296 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1981, no writ).
PER CURIAM Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 14th day of November, 2016.
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."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).