In Re Alan Michael Aguilar v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 18, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00639-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBERS 13-24-00639-CR, 13-24-00640-CR, 13-24-00641-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE ALAN MICHAEL AGUILAR

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

Relator Alan Michael Aguilar filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus regarding

trial court cause numbers 20-CCR-02947-A and 21-CCR-01874-A, arising from the

County Court at Law No. 1 of Cameron County, Texas, and 21-DCR-00968-A, arising

from the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, and docketed respectively in

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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). our appellate cause numbers 13-24-00639-CR, 13-24-00640-CR, and 13-24-00641-CR.

Relator contends that the judges of these trial courts and the State have failed “to address

and respond to his motions and other filings” in which he “moves the court[s] and State

to dismiss the allege[d] pending case[s] for failure to prosecute.” Relator seeks to compel

the trial courts and the State to either dismiss his cases or prosecute them.

In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish

both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary

or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged

harm. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding);

In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam);

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. See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d

207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus

relief. See id.; 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 pro se applicant for a writ of

mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). This burden

includes providing a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. In re

Schreck, 642 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2022, orig. proceeding); In re Pena,

619 S.W.3d at 839; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (delineating the required form

2 and content for a petition in an original proceeding), 52.7(a) (providing that the relator

“must file” a record including specific matters).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and relator’s failure to furnish an appendix or record, is of the opinion that relator has not

met his burden to obtain mandamus relief against the judges of the trial courts. And, to

the extent that relator seeks relief against the State, our mandamus jurisdiction does not

extend to other parties unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction, and this case

presents no such circumstances. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b), (c); In re

Shugart, 528 S.W.3d 794, 796 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, orig. proceeding).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus in part as to the judges of the trial

courts and dismiss it in part for lack of jurisdiction as to the State. Our ruling encompasses

each of the foregoing cause numbers.

L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the 18th day of December, 2024.