in Re State of Texas Ex Rel. Mark Skurka, District Attorney for the 105th Judicial District ( 2016 )

NUMBER 13-16-00660-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. MARK SKURKA,
DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE 105TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, the State of Texas ex rel. Mark Skurka, District Attorney for the 105th
Judicial District, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency stay in
the above cause on December 2, 2016. Through this original proceeding, the State seeks
to compel the trial court to set aside a discovery order requiring it to produce “certain
agenda prepared for multidisciplinary task force meetings and Children’s Advocacy
1 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).
Center site visit reports.” Through its motion for emergency relief, the State requests that
we either stay the trial of this matter set for December 5, 2016, or “at least the discovery
order in question, pending resolution of the present mandamus proceeding.”
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that it has no
adequate remedy at law to redress his 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); 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).
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 its burden to obtain
mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, relator’s
petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief are denied. 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Do not publish.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 December, 2016.
2