In Re Eustorgio Guzman Resendez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 30, 2023
• Docket: 13-23-00459-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-23-00459-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE EUSTORGIO GUZMAN RESENDEZ

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Proceeding pro se, relator Eustorgio Guzman Resendez filed a petition for writ of

mandamus seeking to vacate various orders and a judgment on grounds that the trial

court “was without authority to preside over . . . this case.” Relator’s contentions concern

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). matters related to his 1992 conviction for capital murder. 2 Relator has further filed a

motion for leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus.

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. 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).

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

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Further, as previously noted,

relator filed a motion for leave to file this original proceeding. Although a motion for leave

is required to file original proceedings in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX.

R. APP. P. 72.1, a motion for leave is not required to file original proceedings in the

intermediate appellate courts. See id. R. 52 & cmt.; In re Fields, 619 S.W.3d 394, 394

(Tex. App.—Waco 2021, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see also In re Simmons, No. 13-

2 See Resendez v. State, 860 S.W.2d 605, 606 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1993, pet.

ref'd) (affirming relator’s conviction on direct appeal); see also In re Resendez, No. 13-20-00433-CR, 2020 WL 6278290, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Oct. 27, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (collecting related cases).

2 23-00217-CR, 2023 WL 3688028, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 26,

2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We thus dismiss the

motion for leave as moot.

NORA L. LONGORIA Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the 30th day of October, 2023.