Opinion
NUMBER 13-16-00183-CR
04-05-2016
IN RE DARRYLL D. TAYLOR
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria
Memorandum OpinionPer Curiam
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).
Relator, Darryll D. Taylor, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus on April 4, 2016, through which he seeks to compel the trial court to issue a certification of relator's right to appeal and to provide relator with the appellate record and "other related documents."See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).
Other causes involving relator include: In re Taylor, No. 13-16-00101-CR, 2016 WL 872705, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 18, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam) (not designated for publication); Taylor v. State, No. 13-14-00160-CR, 2014 WL 2069345, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 15, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op. per curiam) (not designated for publication); In re Taylor, No. 13-14-00068-CR, 2014 WL 495137, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 6, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op. per curiam) (not designated for publication). --------
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show: (1) that he has no adequate remedy at law, and (2) that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (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) (orig. proceeding). It is 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, 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. In this regard, it is clear that 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).
In this case, relator has provided an insufficient appendix and record insofar as he has only provided this Court with a declaration of inability to pay costs and copies of two motions, which are not file-stamped, which were purportedly filed with the trial court. Accordingly, the Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Thus, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 5th day of April, 2016.