in Re Damien Gabriel Garza ( 2022 )

NUMBER 13-22-00499-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE DAMIEN GABRIEL GARZA
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1
On October 20, 2022, relator Damien Gabriel Garza filed a petition for writ of
mandamus asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by denying relator’s motion
for continuance. Relator further filed a motion for emergency stay seeking “to prevent
further proceedings in the trial court and to preserve this Court’s mandamus jurisdiction
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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
to consider the merits of [this] original proceeding.”
In a criminal case, 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 and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged
harm. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding);
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) (orig. proceeding).
Under normal circumstances, “a trial court’s decision to refuse a continuance is
reversible only for an abuse of discretion,” and thus, the court’s ruling on a motion for
continuance is discretionary rather than ministerial. Matamoros v. State, 901 S.W.2d 470,
478 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (en banc); see Collier v. Poe, 732 S.W.2d 332, 334 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1987) (orig. proceeding) (en banc) (stating that “as a general rule the
determination of whether to grant a continuance lies with the sound discretion of the
court”). Nevertheless, such decisions may be ministerial when, for instance, a statute
renders the granting of a motion for continuance to be a ministerial duty. See Collier, 732
S.W.2d at 346; Ojeda v. State, 916 S.W.2d 609, 610 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, pet.
ref’d).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his
2
burden to obtain relief. Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the
motion for emergency stay. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), (d).
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).
Delivered and filed on the
21st day of October, 2022.
3