In Re: Juan Francisco Turcios v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 14, 2024
• Docket: 05-24-01136-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed October 14, 2024

In the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-01134-CV No. 05-24-01136-CV

IN RE JUAN FRANCISCO TURCIOS, Relator

Original Proceedings from the 203rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-70886, F11-70896

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Carlyle Before the Court are relator’s September 26, 2024 petitions for writ of

mandamus. In his petitions, as we construe them, relator contends that the trial court

accepted his plea agreement but violated it by sentencing relator to twenty years

instead of the agreed ten-year sentence. Accordingly, relator seeks specific

performance of his purported plea agreement.

As an initial matter, relator appealed his convictions to this court, and did not

complain about the plea agreement though he was represented in that appeal by able

counsel well known to this court. Turcios v. State, Nos. 05-12-00839 & -00840-CR,

2013 WL 5536939 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 7, 2013, pet. ref’d) (mem. op. not designated for publication). The record in those appeals demonstrates that relator

entered a guilty plea and “went open” to the judge for sentencing, meaning, as his

counsel explained on the record in the first half of the plea colloquy, that there was

no plea agreement as to the sentence. The State did agree to drop two enhancement

paragraphs in exchange for relator’s guilty plea.1 Relator acknowledged agreeing to

go open to the judge because that was his only chance at receiving probation.

In any event, relator’s petitions do not comply with the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure in numerous respects. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(d), (f)–(k);

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). Thus, relator’s petitions do not meet the requirements of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See In re

Guillaume, No. 05-24-00765-CV, 2024 WL 3548511, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July

26, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus relief based on relator’s

failure to comply with several Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure).

For example, rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires a relator to file an appendix with his

petition that contains “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any

other document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A).

Rule 52.7(a)(1) requires the relator to file with his petition “a certified or sworn copy

of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed

1 We note also that this is relator’s fifth mandamus petition to the court directed at the same cases and that he has filed numerous proceedings in the Court of Criminal Appeals since that court denied his original petition for writ of habeas corpus without hearing. –2– in any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Relator did not file with

his petitions an appendix or record.

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petitions.

/Cory L. Carlyle// 241134f.p05 CORY L. CARLYLE 241136f.p05 JUSTICE

–3–