Opinion
NUMBER 13-18-00449-CR
08-20-2018
IN RE FRED G. MARTINEZ
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions); id. R. 52.8(d) ("When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case," but when "denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.").
Relator Fred G. Martinez, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on August 16, 2018. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to compel the trial court to order the State of Texas, acting by and through the District Attorney of Nueces County, to surrender allegedly exculpatory evidence. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87-88 (1963); see also TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN. art. 39.14 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). Relator further seeks to compel the trial court to order DNA analysis under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 64.01-.05 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.).
This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number 14-CR-2389-B and joins other appellate causes arising from this same trial court proceeding. See In re Martinez, No. 13-18-00430-CR, 2018 WL 3764219, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 8, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re Martinez, No. 13-17-00310-CR, 2017 WL 2665266, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 20, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Martinez v. State, No. 13-16-00249-CR, 2017 WL 2200299, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 16, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Martinez v. State, No. 13-15-00084-CR, 2015 WL 1137753, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 12, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (per curiam).
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."). 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. As the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Lizcano v. Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (Alcala, J. concurring); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; see TEX. R. APP. P. 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 relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 20th day of August, 2018.