In Re Eric Marques v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 10, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00644-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00644-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE ERIC MARQUES

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Peña, and West Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina1

Eric Marques has filed a pro se pleading entitled “Unopposed Motion for Immediate

Entry of Order Granting Habeas Relief and Directing Expunction (No Opposition by

State)” in the above-referenced cause. Although this pleading is unclear, Marques

appears to assert that the trial court has failed a ministerial duty to expedite a nonsuit filed

by the State of Texas. Marques does not have a pending appeal in this Court and he does

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). not reference a judgment or order that is subject to appeal. Accordingly, we liberally

construe this pro se pleading as a petition for writ of mandamus. See generally TEX. R.

APP. P. 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);

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

2 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 pleading at issue, and having

construed it as a petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that Marques has not met

his burden to obtain relief. Marques’s petition fails to meet the requirements of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure, and without argument, authority, or supporting

documentation, we cannot ascertain the merits of his request for relief. Accordingly, we

deny the petition for writ of mandamus and all relief sought in this cause number.

JAIME TIJERINA Chief Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the 10th day of December, 2025.