in Re: Israel Callero Mendez ( 2016 )

DENY; and Opinion Filed December 14, 2016.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-01403-CV
IN RE ISRAEL CALLERO MENDEZ, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 195th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F10-00914-N
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers
Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Relator has not established
his right to mandamus relief.
In 2008, relator was indicted, convicted, and given a mandatory life sentence without
parole for capital murder in trial court cause number F08-59468. In 2010, relator was indicted
for an aggravated assault allegedly committed during the same 2008 robbery from which his
capital murder conviction arose. The aggravated assault indictment was docketed as cause
number F10-00914. This Court affirmed relator’s capital murder conviction. See Mendez v.
State, 05-10-01461-CR, 2012 WL 1344722, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 18, 2012, pet. ref’d).
Relator has since filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, all of which have
been denied. In this original proceeding relator asks this Court to order the trial court to provide
him with “the papers in cause # F10-00914” in order to show that the aggravated assault
indictment should have been part of the appellate record in the capital murder case.
The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure have specific requirements for the form and
contents of a petition for writ of mandamus. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Relator’s petition is not
properly certified and does not include an appendix containing a certified or sworn copy of every
document that is material to his claim for relief. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j),(k), 52.7(a)(1). Because
the mandamus record does not include relator’s pleadings in the trial court, the mandamus record
in this case is insufficient to determine whether relator has filed a pending petition for writ of
habeas corpus and seeks documents in conjunction with a pending petition, or whether relator is
simply seeking documents to prepare for the filing of a future petition for writ of habeas corpus.
This distinction is critical because it determines whether the Court has jurisdiction over the
petition for writ of mandamus. Compare Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (in granting writ of mandamus to vacate judgment of
conviction, court of appeals usurped exclusive authority of court of criminal appeals to grant
post-conviction relief by writ of habeas corpus) with Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth
Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding) (absent pending
application for habeas corpus filed under Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
appellate court has jurisdiction to rule on a mandamus petition requesting access to material that
could be used in future habeas application).
Because relator has failed to comply with the requirements of rule 52, he has failed to
show he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8.
/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
JUSTICE
161403F.P05
–2–