in Re: Alejandro Mata
This text of in Re: Alejandro Mata (in Re: Alejandro Mata) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NUMBER 13-09-00271-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE ALEJANDRO MATA
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Alejandro Mata, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above
cause on May 18, 2009. We deny the petition as stated herein.
Mandamus relief may be granted if the relator shows that: (1) the act sought to be
compelled is purely ministerial; and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law. See Deleon
v. Dist. Clerk, 187 S.W.3d 473, 474 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding). The relator
must have a “clear right” to the relief sought and the merits of the relief sought must be
“beyond dispute.” See id. “The requirement of a clear legal right necessitates that the law
1 See T EX . R . A PP . P . 5 2 .8 (d ) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand dow n an opinio n but is not required to do so.”); T EX . R . A PP . P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions). plainly describes the duty to be performed such that there is no room for the exercise of
discretion.” See id.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought. First, the
petition for writ of mandamus fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
See generally TEX . R. APP. P. 52.3. Specifically, for instance, the petition lacks an
appendix and a record, fails to contain a “clear and concise argument for the contentions
made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record,” and is largely
illegible. See id. 52.3(h). Second, relator has not met the requirements for mandamus
relief. See Deleon, 187 S.W.3d at 474. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is
DENIED. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish. See TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this the 19th day of May, 2009.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re: Alejandro Mata, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-alejandro-mata-texapp-2009.