From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re De Loera

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
Sep 21, 2021
No. 13-21-00300-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 21, 2021)

Opinion

13-21-00300-CR

09-21-2021

IN RE AMADO RIVERA DE LOERA


Do not publish.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

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Silva

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LETICIA HINOJOSA JUSTICE

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."); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

Pro se relator Amado Rivera De Loera has filed a petition for writ of mandamus through which he seeks to compel the trial court to dismiss the underlying case "for failure to prosecute" in violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 51.14; State v. Votta, 299 S.W.3d 130, 134-35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

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 that that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm. 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 Judicial 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 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 (governing the form and contents for a petition). The relator must also file an appendix and 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 established his entitlement to the relief sought. See In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d at 334; In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d at 704; State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Relator has failed to (1) include a statement of facts supported by citations to competent evidence included in the appendix or record, (2) provide a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record, and (3) file an appendix and record sufficient to support the claim for relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3; id. R. 52.3(k). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.


Summaries of

In re De Loera

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
Sep 21, 2021
No. 13-21-00300-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 21, 2021)
Case details for

In re De Loera

Case Details

Full title:IN RE AMADO RIVERA DE LOERA

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg

Date published: Sep 21, 2021

Citations

No. 13-21-00300-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 21, 2021)