in Re Hector Cavazos, Jr.

NUMBER 13-14-00443-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE HECTOR CAVAZOS JR.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Hector Cavazos Jr., proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of
mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to order relator’s former criminal defense
counsel to turn over relator’s case files.2 This Court previously affirmed relator’s
conviction on direct appeal of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first-
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).
2 Relator also filed a motion for leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus. Relator's motion for
leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot. The Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure no longer require the relator to file a motion for leave to file an original proceeding. See generally
TEX. R. APP. P. 52 & cmt.
degree felony. See Cavazos v. State, No. 13-10-00525-CR, 2011 WL 6917580, at *1
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 29, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op. not designated for
publication).
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
v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of App. 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 relief. First, the petition for
writ of mandamus fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See
generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Second, relator has not demonstrated that respondent
2
expressly refused to rule on relator’s motion or that an unreasonable amount of time has
passed since the motion was filed. See In re Dimas, 88 S.W.3d 349, 351 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); accord O'Connor v. First Ct. of App., 837
S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, the petition for writ of
mandamus is DENIED. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
10th day of October, 2014.
3