in Re Jose Sanchez

NUMBER 13-18-00420-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
IN RE JOSE SANCHEZ
____________________________________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez1
Relator Jose Sanchez, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in
the above cause on August 2, 2018, seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court
to issue a nunc pro tunc judgment correcting relator’s jail time credit.
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,
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions); id. R. 52.8(d)
(“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case,” but when “denying relief,
the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”).
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
of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to
mandamus relief. 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).
Under the foregoing requirements, relator has failed to meet his burden to obtain
mandamus relief. Among other deficiencies, relator has not provided us with any facts,
analysis, or legal authority in support of his contention and he has not filed a record or
appendix in support of his petition for writ of mandamus. And, to the extent that relator
requests that he be issued a “number for appeal in this court to proceed with my petition
for writ of mandamus,” we note that such an assigned number is unnecessary because
2
our cause numbers are assigned by the clerks of this Court. We deny the petition for
writ of mandamus without prejudice for the reasons stated here.
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice
Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
3rd day of August, 2018.
3