in Re Cavu Mangum ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                  NUMBER 13-19-00340-CR
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
    IN RE CAVU MANGUM
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
    Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1
    Relator Cavu Mangum, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in
    the above cause through which he appears to contend that his due process rights have
    been violated as a result of proceedings concerning his charges for felony theft. This
    original proceeding arises from cause number 19,548 in the District Court of Wharton
    County, Texas.
    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).
    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 a writ of
    mandamus. 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 mandamus
    and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not met his burden to obtain
    2
    relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and all relief sought therein.
    See In re 
    Harris, 491 S.W.3d at 334
    ; In re 
    McCann, 422 S.W.3d at 704
    .
    DORI CONTRERAS
    Chief Justice
    Do not publish.
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    Delivered and filed the
    9th day of July, 2019.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-19-00340-CR

Filed Date: 7/9/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/11/2019