In Re Joshua Ray Yeomans v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 26, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00055-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00055-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE JOSHUA RAY YEOMANS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Relator Joshua Ray Yeomans filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking

to compel the trial court to issue a ruling and grant relator’s motion for nunc pro tunc

judgment concerning jail time credit.

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. 47.1 (“The court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.”); id. R. 47.4 (explaining the differences between opinions and memorandum opinions). 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). 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, 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), 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents

for the appendix), 52.7(a) (stating the required contents for the record).

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.

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus fails generally to comply with the foregoing

requirements. See id. R. 52.3, 52.7. And although a judge has a ministerial duty to rule

2 on a motion, the decision regarding how to rule is discretionary in nature, and accordingly,

we may not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a judge to rule a certain way on that

motion. See Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the 26th day of January, 2024.