Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 03-04-2021
Case Style:
In re David Hernandez
Case Number: 13-21-00005-CR
Judge: LETICIA HINOJOSA
Court: COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Plaintiff's Attorney: Hon. Luis V. Saenz
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Corpus Christi and Edinburg, Texas - Relator David Hernandez, proceeding pro se filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause through which he requests that we direct the trial court and Brownsville Police Department to provide him with various materials for relator to utilize in pursuing an appeal of his October 9, 2009 judgment of conviction for murder.
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
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).
2
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.
Outcome: The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: