Opinion
NUMBER 13-18-00306-CR
06-15-2018
IN RE GUSTAVO LOPEZ MIRELES
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
Relator Gustavo Lopez Mireles, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on June 14, 2018. This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number CR-3196-01-F in the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. Relator contends that he was acquitted of all criminal charges against him and he "has been held as a hostage and as a kidnapped victim by the state." He requests that we order him to be released and discharged from imprisonment. This Court previously affirmed relator's conviction for murder on direct appeal. See Mireles v. State, No. 13-02-00706-CR, 2005 WL 1492078, at *7 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 23, 2005, pet. ref'd) (mem. op. not designated for publication); see also In re Mireles, No. 13-18-00137-CR, 2018 WL 1313533, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 13, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (denying mandamus relief regarding relator's request for the transcription of a reporter's record); Mireles v. State, No. 13-14-00600-CR, 2014 WL 7231518, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 18, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., per curiam, not designated for publication) (concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction over an appeal of the denial of a motion for disclosure concerning exculpatory material); Mireles v. State, No. 13-14-00497-CR, 2014 WL 5065719, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 9, 2014, pet. ref'd) (concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction over an appeal of an order denying a request for a court of inquiry).
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 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."); see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3.
Article 11.07 vests jurisdiction over post-conviction relief from otherwise final felony convictions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re Watson, 253 S.W.3d 319, 320 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding). The intermediate courts of appeal have no role in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings under article 11.07 and have no authority to issue writs of mandamus relating to such proceedings. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, §§ 3; 5; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding); In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 197 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, concludes that we lack jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, we dismiss relator's petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 15th day of June, 2018.