in Re Randall Bolivar ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                  NUMBER 13-16-00304-CR
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
    IN RE RANDALL BOLIVAR
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria
    Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
    Relator Randall Bolivar, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in
    the above cause on June 6, 2016. April 29, 2011. Relator contends that his conviction
    for murder is void because the trial court was disqualified to proceed over his case.
    To be entitled to mandamus relief, 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
    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.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
    v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct. of Apps. 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. 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.”).
    The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
    and the response thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain
    mandamus relief. See State ex rel. 
    Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210
    . Relator has raised the
    same issue presented in this original proceeding in a separate appeal currently pending
    in this Court in our cause number 13-14-00157-CR. Thus, relator has an adequate
    remedy by appeal. See In re Lerma, 
    144 S.W.3d 21
    , 25 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, orig.
    proceeding); see also In re Durham, No. 09-11-00579-CR, 
    2011 WL 5389878
    , at *1 (Tex.
    App.—Beaumont Nov. 9, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam, not designated
    for publication). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX.
    R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
    PER CURIAM
    Do not publish.
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    Delivered and filed the
    7th day of June, 2016.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-16-00304-CR

Filed Date: 6/7/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/8/2016