In Re Anthony Cano Rodriguez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 30, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00366-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00366-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE TONY CANO RODRIGUEZ

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

Tony Cano Rodriguez, also known as Anthony Cano Rodriguez, filed a pro se

pleading in this Court requesting us to “adjudicate or resolve this matter in the interest of

justice.” Although this pleading is unclear, Rodriguez appears to contend that he has been

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). denied the effective assistance of counsel and the opportunity to pursue a petition for

discretionary review. This Court previously affirmed Rodriguez’s conviction for sexual

assault. See Rodriguez v. State, No. 13-22-00215-CR, 2023 WL 3749895, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 1, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication); see also In re Rodriguez, No. 13-22-00180-CR, 2022 WL 1251059, at *1

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 27, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not

designated for publication) (denying Rodriguez’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus

raising complaints regarding a delayed trial, the ineffective assistance of counsel, and the

failure to disclose exculpatory evidence). Rodriguez does not have a pending appeal in

this Court and he does not reference a different final judgment that is subject to appeal

or a separately appealable interlocutory order. Accordingly, we liberally construe

Rodriguez’s pleading as a petition for writ of mandamus. See generally TEX. R. APP. P.

19.1 (delineating the plenary power of the appellate courts), 25.2 (governing the

perfection of appeal in criminal cases), 52 (describing the requirements for filing original

proceedings); In re Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd. P’ship, 189 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. App.—Tyler

2006, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (“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.”).

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);

2 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 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,

is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. Further,

we note that the exclusive method for a collateral attack on a final felony conviction is

through a writ of habeas corpus filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; Ater v. Eighth Ct. of Apps., 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (“We are the only court with jurisdiction in final post-

conviction felony proceedings.”); see also Calton v. Schiller, 498 S.W.3d 247, 252 (Tex.

3 App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. denied). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus.

NORA L. LONGORIA Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the 30th day of July, 2024.