Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 03-03-2021
Case Style:
In re Rosendo Padilla Jr.
Case Number: 13-21-00029-CR
Judge: JAIME TIJERINA
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 Rosendo Padilla Jr., proceeding pro se,
filed a petition for writ of mandamus.
Relator Rosendo Padilla Jr., 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
make a “Final Judicial Determination” and submit a statement of facts regarding relator’s
pending “Motion to Void Judgment,” “Motion to Take Judicial Notice,” and “Motion to
Dismiss.” Relator asserts that county courts at law can issue habeas corpus relief for
misdemeanor convictions and that he has provided the trial court with evidence in support
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
of his claim for habeas relief. Relator argues, inter alia, that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction; relator’s guilty plea was not voluntary; the trial court’s fact-finding process
was not constitutionally valid; relator was provided with ineffective assistance of counsel;
and relator’s conviction was secured by false evidence. Relator also asserts that there
has been a thirty-two-month delay in processing the “appeal” of his conviction.
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.
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: