in Re Fred Martinez ( 2018 )

NUMBER 13-18-00481-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
IN RE FRED G. MARTINEZ
____________________________________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez 1
Relator Fred G. Martinez, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus2
in the above cause on September 4, 2018. 3 Through this original proceeding, relator
1 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.”).
2 Relator also filed an “Application for Leave of Court to File Writ of Mandamus.” We dismiss
relator’s “Application for Leave of Court to File Writ of Mandamus” as moot. The Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure no longer require the relator to file a motion for leave to file an original proceeding. See
generally Tex. R. App. P. 52 & cmt.
3 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. 13-18-00455-CR,
2018 WL 3999742, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 21, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not
1
seeks to compel the trial court to (1) order the State of Texas, acting by and through the
District Attorney of Nueces County, Texas, to surrender allegedly exculpatory evidence,
and (2) order DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
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.); id. arts. 64.01-.05 (West, Westlaw
through 2017 1st C.S.).
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
designated for publication); In re Martinez, No. 13-18-00449-CR, 2018 WL _____, at *_ (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi Aug. 20, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); 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).
2
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.
/s/ Rogelio Valdez
ROGELIO VALDEZ
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
6th day of September, 2018.
3