in Re Juan Carlos Rios ( 2021 )

NUMBERS 13-21-00252-CR & 13-21-00253-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE JUAN CARLOS RIOS
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides 1
Juan Carlos Rios, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a pleading requesting
that we order judges in two district courts to dismiss the cases against him. Because
Rios’s pleading does not reference orders or judgments subject to appeal and he is, in
essence, asking us to command public officers to perform an act, we construe his
pleading as a petition for writ of mandamus. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(a), (d)
(governing the perfection of appeal); In re Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd. P’ship, 189 S.W.3d 400,
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.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
403 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding) (“The function of the writ of mandamus is
to compel action by those who by virtue of their official or quasi-official positions are
charged with a positive duty to act.”) (citing Boston v. Garrison, 256 S.W.2d 67, 70 (Tex.
1953)); see also In re Guthrie, No. 13-20-00134-CR, 2020 WL 1181261, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Mar. 12, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not
designated for publication). Rios seeks relief against the Honorable Noe Gonzalez in trial
court cause number CR-4325-09-G in the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas,
filed in our appellate cause number 13-21-00252-CR, and against the Honorable Leticia
Lopez in trial court cause number CR-4686-08-H in the 389th District Court of Hidalgo
County, Texas, filed in our appellate cause number 13-21-00253-CR.
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 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 Judicial 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. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210; In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d
424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a
2
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. The relator must also file an appendix and 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).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
filed in these causes, the limited documentation provided, and the applicable law, is of
the opinion that the relator has not established his entitlement to the relief sought.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus, and all relief sought therein, in
each of these causes.
GINA M. BENAVIDES
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).
Delivered and filed on the
13th day of August, 2021.
3