In Re George Olivarez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 7, 2023
• Docket: 13-23-00390-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBERS 13-23-00389-CR, 13-23-00390-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE GEORGE OLIVAREZ

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

George Olivarez filed a pro se “Motion to Have the Appellate Record Furnished

with Charge” in this Court. Olivarez requests that we order the court reporter to transcribe

the proceedings pertaining to his criminal convictions and to furnish the records to him

“with a charge.” Because Olivarez does not have any pending appeals and he requests

us to command an individual to perform an act, we liberally construe his motion as a

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). petition for writ of mandamus. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1 (governing the perfection

of appeal); Ex parte Caldwell, 58 S.W.3d 127, 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (stating that “it

is the substance of the motion that governs, not the title”), superseded by statute on other

grounds as recognized by Druery v. State, 412 S.W.3d 523, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

We resolve Olivarez’s requests for relief regarding trial court cause number CR-00-145-

ES1, docketed in our appellate cause number 13-23-00389-CR, and trial court cause

number CR-00-146-ES1, docketed in our appellate cause number 13-23-00390-CR, in

this consolidated memorandum opinion in the interests of judicial efficiency.

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). Our jurisdiction to issue mandamus relief

is limited by statute. See generally TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221. In short, we have no

authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a court reporter unless they are interfering with

our appellate jurisdiction. In re Strickhausen, 994 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

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

2 and the applicable law, is of the opinion that Olivarez has not met his burden to show that

we have jurisdiction to entertain his request for mandamus relief. Accordingly, we dismiss

the petitions for writ of mandamus in each cause for lack of jurisdiction.

NORA L. LONGORIA Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the 7th day of September, 2023.