In Re Francisco J. Solis v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 19, 2023
• Docket: 13-23-00146-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-23-00146-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE FRANCISCO J. SOLIS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1

Relator Francisco J. Solis has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus through

which he requests that we compel the trial court to correct the “illegal stacking” of his

sentences so that “he can be released from his unlawful restraint of liberty.”

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

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). 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).

It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus

relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210; 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.”). In addition to other requirements, the relator must include a statement

of facts and a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate

citations to authorities and to the appendix or record. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3

(governing the form and contents for a petition). Further, the relator must file an appendix

and record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k)

(specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required

contents for the record).

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 relief. Further, if we were to

construe the petition for writ of mandamus as a petition for writ of habeas corpus given

that relator contends that his confinement is “unlawful,” we would lack jurisdiction over his

2 complaint. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d). In short, we do not have original

habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters. See Ex parte Braswell, 630 S.W.3d 600,

601–02 (Tex. App.—Waco 2021, orig. proceeding); In re Quinata, 538 S.W.3d 120, 120–

21 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, orig. proceeding); In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 356, 356–57

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Therefore, to the

extent that relator may seek habeas corpus relief we would lack jurisdiction over his

request for relief. Based on the foregoing, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

JAIME TIJERINA Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the 19th day of April, 2023.