in Re Markus A. Green

NUMBER 13-14-000260-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE MARKUS A. GREEN
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Markus Antonius Green, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in the above cause on May 8, 2014.2 Through this original proceeding, relator
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 has had other appeals and original proceedings in this Court. See, e.g., Green v. State,
Nos. 13-14-00169-CR & 13-14-00170-CR, 2014 WL 1514167 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Apr. 17, 2014,
no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re Green, No. 13-14-000208-CR, 2014
WL 1457819 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Apr. 9, 2014, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not
designated for publication); Green v. State, No. 13-13-00649-CR, 2014 WL 346025 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi Jan. 30, 2014, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Relator also has
three additional pending appeals, each styled Markus Antonius Green v. State, in our cause numbers 13-
13-00544-CR, 13-13-00545-CR, and 13-13-00546-CR, as well as several petitions for writ of mandamus,
1
seeks to compel the trial court to: (1) award relator jail time credit; (2) notify the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division regarding relator’s jail time credit;
(3) award relator monetary compensation for time incarcerated in excess of that required
by his sentence; and (4) enter an order terminating relator’s sentence as fully and
completely discharged.
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. In re State ex rel.
Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding); 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. State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210.
It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus
relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re
Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding); see
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 also file an appendix and record
see In re Green, Nos. 13-14-00250-CR, 13-14-00251-CR, 13-14-00252-CR, 13-14-00253-CR, and 13-14-
00254-CR.
2
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); see also Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the foregoing requirements, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to
obtain mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, the
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 the
12th day of May, 2014.
3