in Re Amado Rivera De Loera

NUMBER 13-21-00300-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE AMADO RIVERA DE LOERA
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa1
Pro se relator Amado Rivera De Loera has filed a petition for writ of mandamus
through which he seeks to compel the trial court to dismiss the underlying case “for failure
to prosecute” in violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. See TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 51.14; State v. Votta, 299 S.W.3d 130, 134–35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that the act
sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision
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.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
that that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm. In re Harris,
491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); 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 Judicial Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).
It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus
relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210; In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d
424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“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 (governing the form and contents for a petition). The relator must also file an
appendix and 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
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not established his entitlement
to the relief sought. See In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d at 334; In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d at
2
704; State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Relator has failed to (1) include a statement
of facts supported by citations to competent evidence included in the appendix or record,
(2) provide a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate
citations to authorities and to the appendix or record, and (3) file an appendix and record
sufficient to support the claim for relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3; id. R. 52.3(k).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
LETICIA HINOJOSA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).
Delivered and filed on the
21st day of September, 2021.
3