In Re Donald Boson A/K/A Donald Lee Boson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 17, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00181-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00181-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE DONALD BOSON A/K/A DONALD LEE BOSON

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron1

On April 15, 2025, relator Donald Boson a/k/a Donald Lee Boson filed a pro se

petition for writ of mandamus through which he asserts that the trial court committed

professional misconduct and violated his due process rights. Relator requests that we

compel the trial court to dismiss his indictment with prejudice. See generally TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 32.01 (governing the dismissal of an indictment when a defendant

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). is in custody or held to bail).

“Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited

circumstances.” State ex rel. Wice v. Fifth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps., 581 S.W.3d 189, 193

(Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (orig. proceeding). In a criminal case, 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).

If the relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should

be denied. 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 In re Schreck, 642 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2022, orig.

proceeding); In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021,

orig. proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (delineating the required contents for

the appendix in an original proceeding), R. 52.7(a) (providing that the relator “must file” a

record including specific matters); 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.”).

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

the limited record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not

met his burden to obtain relief. Further, to the extent that relator may be seeking relief

2 from a final felony conviction, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to

grant such relief. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; Padieu v. Ct. of Apps. of

Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding); Ater v.

Eighth Ct. of Apps., 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding); In re

Williams, 584 S.W.3d 500, 500 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2018, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

JENNY CRON Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the 17th day of April, 2025.