In Re Joe Feijoo v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 30, 2025
• Docket: 08-25-00156-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

§ IN RE No. 08-25-00156-CR § JOE FEIJOO, AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING § Relator. IN MANDAMUS §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is Relator Joe Feijoo’s fourth mandamus petition1 filed in this Court requesting we

order the Honorable Francisco X. Dominguez, judge of the 205th District Court, to vacate a “void

judgment” and enter a judgment of acquittal. As before, he is self-represented. In repeating the

same allegations, Feijoo contends the 205th District Court lacked jurisdiction over criminal

charges brought against him in 1993, which were docketed as trial cause number 70264-205,

because the charges were identical to those the State declined to prosecute in 1991.

Generally, mandamus relief is appropriate only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or to

compel the performance of a ministerial duty, and where the relator has no adequate remedy by

appeal. In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding). Relator shoulders the

1 In re Feijoo, No. 08-24-00005-CR, 2024 WL 378857, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Jan. 31, 2024, no pet.) (orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re Feijoo, No. 08-19-00314-CR, 2020 WL 401835 (Tex. App.—El Paso Jan 24, 2020, no pet.) (orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re Feijoo, No. 08-22-00031-CR, 2022 WL 336779 (Tex. App.—El Paso Feb. 4, 2022, no pet.) (orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). This Court dismissed Relator’s direct appeal for want of jurisdiction in 2012, finding that the appeal was not timely filed. Feijoo v. State, No. 08-12-00015-CR, 2012 WL 341662 (Tex. App.—El Paso Feb. 1, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). burden to show he is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Ford Motor Company, 165 S.W.3d

315, 317 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). After reviewing relator’s petition and record,

we conclude it fails to establish his entitlement to either mandamus or other relief.2 Accordingly,

we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

May 30,2025

Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

2 The exhibits attached to Feijoo’s petition here are identical to those that were attached to a prior petition, which we denied. See In re Feijoo, 2024 WL 378857, at *1 (providing a detailed description of the documents attached to relator’s petition).