From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Deaton

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Jun 30, 2014
NUMBER 13-14-00342-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 30, 2014)

Opinion

NUMBER 13-14-00342-CR

06-30-2014

IN RE CARL DEATON


On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

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).

On June 23, 2014, relator Carl Deaton, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief against respondent Patsy Perez, the District Clerk of Nueces County, Texas, because relator "has not received appealable rulings" on several motions that he filed in the underlying criminal proceeding. We dismiss this original proceeding as stated herein.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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 ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of App. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). If the relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. See id. 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. In this regard, it is clear that the relator must furnish an appendix or record that is 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).

II. ANALYSIS

Relator's petition for writ of mandamus fails to meet the foregoing requirements. More saliently, however, this Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over clerks unless it is shown that issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.); In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). For instance, mandamus relief is appropriate when a clerk fails to file and forward a notice of appeal to the appropriate court of appeals. In re Smith, 270 S.W.3d 783, 785 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d at 95-96; In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d at 182; see also Aranda v. Dist. Clerk, 207 S.W.3d 785, 786-87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (granting mandamus relief where the district clerk failed to file a post-conviction habeas application).

III. CONCLUSION

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction to consider this matter. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).


Summaries of

In re Deaton

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Jun 30, 2014
NUMBER 13-14-00342-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 30, 2014)
Case details for

In re Deaton

Case Details

Full title:IN RE CARL DEATON

Court:COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

Date published: Jun 30, 2014

Citations

NUMBER 13-14-00342-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 30, 2014)