In Re Anthony Cano Rodriguez v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

NUMBER 13-24-00366-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE TONY CANO RODRIGUEZ
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1
Tony Cano Rodriguez, also known as Anthony Cano Rodriguez, filed a pro se
pleading in this Court requesting us to “adjudicate or resolve this matter in the interest of
justice.” Although this pleading is unclear, Rodriguez appears to contend that he has been
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).
denied the effective assistance of counsel and the opportunity to pursue a petition for
discretionary review. This Court previously affirmed Rodriguez’s conviction for sexual
assault. See Rodriguez v. State, No. 13-22-00215-CR, 2023 WL 3749895, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 1, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication); see also In re Rodriguez, No. 13-22-00180-CR, 2022 WL 1251059, at *1
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 27, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (denying Rodriguez’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus
raising complaints regarding a delayed trial, the ineffective assistance of counsel, and the
failure to disclose exculpatory evidence). Rodriguez does not have a pending appeal in
this Court and he does not reference a different final judgment that is subject to appeal
or a separately appealable interlocutory order. Accordingly, we liberally construe
Rodriguez’s pleading as a petition for writ of mandamus. See generally TEX. R. APP. P.
19.1 (delineating the plenary power of the appellate courts), 25.2 (governing the
perfection of appeal in criminal cases), 52 (describing the requirements for filing original
proceedings); In re Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd. P’ship, 189 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. App.—Tyler
2006, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (“The function of the writ of mandamus is to
compel action by those who by virtue of their official or quasi-official positions are charged
with a positive duty to act.”).
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);
2
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. See 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 id.; 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.”). This burden includes providing a sufficient record to
establish the right to mandamus relief. In re Schreck, 642 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2022, orig. proceeding); In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d at 839; see also TEX. R. APP. P.
52.3(k)(1)(A) (delineating the required form and content for a petition in an original
proceeding), 52.7(a) (providing that the relator “must file” a record including specific
matters).
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. Further,
we note that the exclusive method for a collateral attack on a final felony conviction is
through a writ of habeas corpus filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; Ater v. Eighth Ct. of Apps., 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (“We are the only court with jurisdiction in final post-
conviction felony proceedings.”); see also Calton v. Schiller, 498 S.W.3d 247, 252 (Tex.
3
App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. denied). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of
mandamus.
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).
Delivered and filed on the
30th day of July, 2024.
4