Opinion
NUMBER 13-18-00241-CR
05-04-2018
IN RE GUSTAVO TIJERINA-SANDOVAL
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
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).
Relator Gustavo Tijerina-Sandoval filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on May 3, 2018. Through this original proceeding, relator contends that the trial court lacked discretion to allow the State to exercise a peremptory challenge on a juror after the juror had been accepted by both the State and relator. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 35.13 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.) ("A juror in a capital case in which the state has made it known it will seek the death penalty, held to be qualified, shall be passed for acceptance or challenge first to the state and then to the defendant. Challenges to jurors are either peremptory or for cause."). Here, after questioning on voir dire, the State and relator accepted the juror; however, the juror subsequently advised the trial court that an acquaintance had been arrested for murder. The juror stated that this occurrence would not affect his ability to serve as a juror. The State moved to strike the juror for cause, but the trial court denied its motion and allowed the State to exercise a peremptory challenge on that juror over the relator's objection.
This case arises from trial court cause number 2015-DCR-02443 in the 197th District Court of Cameron County Texas and has previously been before this Court on a separate original proceeding. See In re State ex rel. Hinojosa, 13-18-00094-CR, 2018 WL 993725, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 20, 2018, orig. proceeding) (per curiam mem. op., not designated for publication).
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish that it has no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm, and that what it 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) (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).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the record, 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, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
JUSTICE Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 4th day of May, 2018.