in Re Valentin Gaona ( 2020 )

NUMBER 13-20-00108-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE VALENTIN GAONA
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1
On February 21, 2020, relator Valentin Gaona, proceeding pro se, filed a petition
for writ of mandamus. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to compel the trial
court to appoint counsel to represent him in trial court cause number 07-CR-3875-F in the
214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. 2
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.”); see also id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2 Relator has previously filed other appeals from the final judgment rendered in this same trial court
cause number. See Gaona v. State, No. 13-08-364-CR, 2009 WL 2568578, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi–Edinburg Mar. 26, 2009, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming conviction
for capital murder); see also Gaona v. State, No. 13-19-00606-CR, 2020 WL 103860, at *1 (Tex. App.—
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) (per curiam) (“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); id. R.
52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record).
Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 9, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing
appeal of conviction for capital murder because of previous appeal and untimeliness).
2
In this case, the relator has failed to provide a sufficient appendix or record in
support of his petition for writ of mandamus and he has therefore failed to meet his burden
to obtain relief. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d at
334; In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d at 704.
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
2nd day of March, 2020.
3