In Re Lawrence Cloud v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 15, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00244-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00244-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE LAWRENCE CLOUD

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

Lawrence Cloud, proceeding pro se, has filed a pleading in this Court seeking relief

for various complaints. This Court previously affirmed Cloud’s conviction for unlawful

possession of a firearm. See Cloud v. State, No. 13-19-00508-CR, 2021 WL 2584397

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated

for publication). Cloud does not have a pending appeal in this Court and he does not

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). reference a different final judgment that is subject to appeal or a separately appealable

interlocutory order. Accordingly, we liberally construe Cloud’s 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.”). Cloud contends,

inter alia, that there was no probable cause for his arrest, that his conviction was

supported by fabricated evidence, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

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,

832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)

2 (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the

extraordinary relief he seeks.”). The relator bears the burden to provide 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.

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

is of the opinion that Cloud 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.

L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the 15th day of May, 2024.