In Re Jaime Javier Guerra v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 17, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00638-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00638-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE JAIME JAVIER GUERRA

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

Jaime Javier Guerra filed a pro se pleading in this Court contending that his

conviction was based on “false testimony” and that he was provided ineffective assistance

of counsel. In 2002, this Court affirmed Guerra’s conviction for the felony offense of

aggravated kidnapping. See Guerra v. State, No. 13-01-00451-CR, 2002 WL 34230959,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 27, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for

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). publication). In the pleading at issue, Guerra asks whether his conviction is currently

under review and requests that we provide him with appointed counsel. Guerra does not

have a pending appeal in this Court and he does not reference a different final judgment

that is subject to appeal or a separately appealable interlocutory order. Accordingly, we

liberally construe his pro se pleading as a petition for writ of mandamus. See generally

TEX. R. APP. P. 19.1 (delineating the plenary power of the appellate courts), 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); see also Barnes v. State,

2 832 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.”). This 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 2022, orig. proceeding); In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d at 839; see also TEX. R. APP. P.

52.3(k)(1)(A) (delineating the required form and content for a petition in an original

proceeding), 52.7(a) (providing that the relator “must file” a record including specific

matters).

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 mandamus relief. Further,

we note that the exclusive method for a collateral attack on a final felony conviction is

through a writ of habeas corpus filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; Ater v. Eighth Ct. of Apps., 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (“We are the only court with jurisdiction in final post-

conviction felony proceedings.”); see also Calton v. Schiller, 498 S.W.3d 247, 252 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. denied). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus. We likewise deny Guerra’s request for the appointment of counsel. See

Carroll v. State, 176 S.W.3d 249, 255 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d);

see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 1.051(d), 26.04(j)(2) (providing that the trial

court has the responsibility for appointing counsel to represent indigent defendants in

criminal cases, as well as the authority to relieve or replace appointed counsel); Falcon

3 v. State, No. 07-22-00301-CR, 2023 WL 5604514, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 29,

2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (order) (not designated for publication).

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the 17th day of December, 2024.