in Re Khari Greene ( 2011 )

NUMBER 13-11-00307-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE KHARI GREENE
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Vela, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Khari Greene, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above
cause on May 16, 2011 through which he seeks to compel the trial court “to entertain
[and] and execute” relator’s cause. We deny the petition as stated herein.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, 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
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).
1
v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). If relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ
of mandamus should be denied. See id. 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).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus, 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. Accordingly, relator’s petition for
writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the 17th day of May, 2011.
2