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 Marcus DeLeon
Case Number: 13-21-00027-CR
Judge: GINA M. BENAVIDES
Court: COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Plaintiff's Attorney: Hon. Jose L. Aliseda
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Corpus Christi and Edinburg, Texas - Relator Marcus DeLeon, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause through which he requests that we direct the trial court to issue a ruling and grant relator’s “Motion for Production of Evidence.”.
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.”); see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3; Lizcano v.
Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (Alcala, J.
concurring); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).. 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 furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for
mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix);
id. R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record).
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. See In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d at 334; In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d at 704.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: