In Re Amber Aimee Moreno v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 5, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00627-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00627-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE AMBER AIMEE MORENO

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1

Relator Amber Aimee Moreno has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting

by five issues that the trial court lacks jurisdiction and that it failed to comply with its

ministerial duties.

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

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). 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). “The petition must contain a clear and concise argument for the

contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.”

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h). Relator’s 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 generally TEX. R. APP. P.

52.3 (delineating the required form and contents of a petition in an original proceeding);

id. R. 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,

the response filed by the real party in interest, the State of Texas acting by and through

Toribio “Terry” Palacios, the District Attorney of Hidalgo County, Texas, relator’s failure

to provide an appendix or record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has

not met her burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s emergency motion for

temporary relief, relator’s motion to accelerate and shorten time and request for

2 immediate action, and relator’s emergency motion pending disposition. We likewise deny

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and all relief sought therein.

JON WEST Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the 5th day of December, 2025.