in Re Marlon Craig Terry

NUMBER 13-17-00001-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE MARLON CRAIG TERRY
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator Marlon Craig Terry filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the above
causes on January 3, 2017 seeking to compel the trial court to grant him jail time credit.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the 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 purely ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. In re Harris,
491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re McCann, 422
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).
S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet
both of these 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).
It is the 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, the 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. The 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). In this case, the relator did not furnish an appendix or record to support his
request for relief.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the 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).
Delivered and filed this the
12th day of January, 2017.
2