In Re Brandon Paul Viator v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 3, 2025
• Docket: 03-24-00833-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00833-CV

In re Brandon Paul Viator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM LEE COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Brandon Paul Viator, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus naming as respondent the “Lee County

Criminal District Attorney’s Office—21st District Court” and asking this Court to direct the

respondent to dismiss untried indictments in various causes identified in the petition. Having

reviewed the petition, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

This Court’s mandamus jurisdiction is expressly limited by statute to: (1) writs

against a district court judge or county court judge in this Court’s district, and (2) all writs

necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. Thus, we have no jurisdiction

to issue a writ of mandamus against a district or county attorney unless necessary to enforce our

jurisdiction. See id. Viator has not demonstrated that the exercise of our writ power against the

designated respondent is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction in this case. Therefore, Viator has

not established that we have jurisdiction to issue the writ Viator seeks. To the extent Viator seeks relief that is within this Court’s jurisdiction to grant, it is

nevertheless Viator’s burden as relator to properly request and establish entitlement to mandamus

relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); 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.”). “In this

regard, the relator must provide the reviewing court with a record sufficient to establish his right

to mandamus relief.” In re Roberts, No. 03-12-00513-CV, 2012 WL 3629367, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Austin Aug. 21, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837); see also

Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k) (specifying required contents for appendix), 52.7(a) (requiring relator to

file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim

for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). Viator, however, has not provided

this Court with any record or any certified or file-stamped copies of any document that is relevant

to his claim for relief.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________ Gisela Triana, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Filed: January 3, 2025