in Re Randall Bolivar ( 2018 )

NUMBER 13-18-00303-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE RANDALL BOLIVAR
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides1
Relator Randall Bolivar, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in
the above cause on June 13, 2018. Through this original proceeding, relator contends
that he is entitled to mandamus relief voiding a warrant. The purpose of the petition for
writ of mandamus was to “correct Bolivar’s Fugitive Felon status in his U.S. Department
of Veteran’s Affairs . . . claims for Disability Compensation Benefits and Payments for the
Relator and his minor children, which are being denied due to . . . incorrect information.”
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 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.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
This Court requested that the State of Texas, acting by and through the District Attorney
of Kleberg County, Texas, or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the
relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the
expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.
In response, the State asserts that the trial court properly issued a capias when Bolivar
failed to appear in court and he was returned to Kleberg County pursuant to the capias.
According to the State, the trial court lacked a ministerial duty to withdraw the capias
when relator was arrested in another jurisdiction. The State ultimately asserts that this
mandamus is moot.
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).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself
entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Further, to the extent that relator may be seeking relief against
the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, we note that, with limited exceptions,
we lack jurisdiction to review administrative decisions pertaining to the denial of veterans’
2
benefits. See 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) (West, Westlaw through P.L. 115-193); King v. U.S.
Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 728 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir. 2013).
GINA M. BENAVIDES,
Justice
Delivered and filed the
11th day of July, 2018.
3