in Re Steve Battles ( 2022 )

NUMBER 13-22-00402-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE STEVE BATTLES
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides1
Steve Battles has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in this cause.
Although his allegations are difficult to discern, Battles appears to request that we order
the trial court to rule on his pending pleadings.
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
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).
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).
It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus
relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210; In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d
424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“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, the relator must include a statement
of facts and 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
(governing the form and contents for a petition). Further, the relator must file an appendix
and 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).
2
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that Battles has not met his burden to obtain
relief. Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8.
GINA M. BENAVIDES
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the
2nd day of September, 2022.
3