in Re Martin Allen Camacho ( 2011 )

NUMBER 13-11-00342-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE MARTIN ALLEN CAMACHO
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or
Writ of Prohibition.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Vela, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Martin Allen Camacho, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of
mandamus and prohibition on June 1, 2011 through which he seeks to compel the trial
court to grant him presentence time credit. We deny the petition.
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. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). If relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ
of mandamus should be denied. See id. Presentence time credit claims typically must
be raised by a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc filed with the clerk of the convicting
trial court, and if the trial court denies the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or fails to
respond, relief may be sought by filing a petition for writ of mandamus in the court of
appeals. See Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (per
curiam).
It is 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, 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. In this regard, it is clear that
relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus
relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a)
(specifying the required contents for the record).
Relator alleges here that he filed a judgment nunc pro tunc motion in September
2008 and the trial court denied that motion on September 13, 2010. The record relator
has provided includes the file-stamped motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and the file-
stamped order memorializing the trial court's ruling. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1).
2
However, the record provided lacks any other documents, including any documentation
verifying the dates and events alleged to be the basis for relator's claim for additional
presentence time credit. See id.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus and prohibition and the applicable law, 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.
A relator must furnish a record sufficient to support his claim for mandamus relief. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). Since relator has not furnished such a record, we cannot
conclude that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of
mandamus and prohibition is denied. See id. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
2nd day of June, 2011.
3