in Re John Costilla

NUMBER 13-19-00651-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE JOHN COSTILLA
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1
Relator John Costilla, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in
the above cause on December 18, 2019. This pleading is entitled “Petition to Compel
Performance of Process DNA Testing . . ., Family Codes Discovery of Entire Records for
Above Trial, Appeal, In the Interest of the Child [N.D.] Born 4/14/2014.” The petition
references trial court cause number 14-CR-4005-A and appellate cause number 13-16-
00171-CR, and it appears that relator seeks to compel the trial court to order “paternity
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.”); see also id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
testing and records of prior [testing].” In our appellate cause number 13-16-00171-CR,
this Court dismissed relator’s attempted appeal from a conviction for sexual assault in
trial court cause number 14-CR-4005-A as untimely. See Costilla v. State, No. 13-16-
00171-CR, 2016 WL 2969672, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 19, 2016, no pet.)
(mem. op. per curiam) (not designated for publication) (dismissing the relator’s attempted
appeal from a conviction for sexual assault as untimely). The petition does not reference
any other trial court cause numbers or related proceedings.
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
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).
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. As the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden
2
of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to a writ of
mandamus. Lizcano v. Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig.
proceeding) (Alcala, J. concurring); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; see TEX. R. APP. P.
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
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has failed to meet his burden to
obtain relief. In this case, the relator has failed to meet the foregoing requirements to
obtain mandamus relief. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837.
He has not provided a record or appendix, and his request for relief is unclear. See
Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Accordingly, we deny the
petition for writ of mandamus and all relief sought therein.
DORI CONTRERAS
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 19th
day of December, 2019.
3