in Re Carl Deaton ( 2014 )

NUMBER 13-14-00342-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE CARL DEATON
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
On June 23, 2014, relator Carl Deaton, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ
of mandamus seeking relief against respondent Patsy Perez, the District Clerk of Nueces
County, Texas, because relator “has not received appealable rulings” on several motions
that he filed in the underlying criminal proceeding. We dismiss this original proceeding
as stated herein.
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.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v.
Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of App. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
If the relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of
mandamus should be denied. See id. 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. In this regard, it is clear that the relator must furnish
an appendix or record that is 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).
II. ANALYSIS
Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus fails to meet the foregoing requirements.
More saliently, however, this Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over clerks
unless it is shown that issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See
TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.); In re Smith,
263 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); In re
Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding);
In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding).
For instance, mandamus relief is appropriate when a clerk fails to file and forward a notice
2
of appeal to the appropriate court of appeals. In re Smith, 270 S.W.3d 783, 785 (Tex.
App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d at 95–96; In re
Washington, 7 S.W.3d at 182; see also Aranda v. Dist. Clerk, 207 S.W.3d 785, 786–87
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (granting mandamus relief where
the district clerk failed to file a post-conviction habeas application).
III. CONCLUSION
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction to consider this matter. Accordingly, the petition
for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
30th day of June, 2014.
3