In Re Luis Rivera Castro v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 6, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00301-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBERS 13-24-00300-CR, 13-24-00301-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE LUIS RIVERA CASTRO

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides1

Relator Luis Rivera Castro has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking

to compel the judge of the trial court, the court reporter, and the district clerk “to

supplement the missing portion of the appellate records.” Relator requests mandamus

relief regarding his convictions in trial court cause numbers A-99-0064-CR and A-99-

0065-CR in the 36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas, and his request for relief is

filed respectively in our appellate cause numbers 13-24-00300-CR and 13-24-00301-CR.

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). This Court previously affirmed these convictions on direct appeal. See Castro v. State,

Nos. 13-23-00218-CR & 13-23-00219-CR, 2023 WL 5624099, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi–Edinburg Aug. 31, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We

address both original proceedings in this single memorandum opinion in the interests of

judicial efficiency.

Article V, § 6 of the Texas Constitution delineates the appellate jurisdiction of the

courts of appeals, and states that the courts of appeals “shall have such other jurisdiction,

original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law.” TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6(a). The main

source of original jurisdiction for the courts of appeals is provided by § 22.221 of the Texas

Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221; In re Cook, 394 S.W.3d 668,

671 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, orig. proceeding). In pertinent part, this section provides that

an intermediate appellate court may issue writs of mandamus against specified judges in

its district and “all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” TEX. GOV’T

CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b).

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

2 207, 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.”). 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), R. 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

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain

mandamus relief in either cause number. Relator has not established that the judge of

the trial court failed to perform a ministerial act or that relator lacks an adequate remedy

at law. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d at 388; In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d at 334. Further,

relator has not shown that mandamus relief against the district clerk and the court reporter

is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b); In re

Strickhausen, 994 S.W.2d 936, 936 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig.

proceeding) (per curiam) (“We have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a court

reporter or the district clerk unless they are interfering with our appellate jurisdiction.”);

see also In re Parks, No. 12-23-00242-CR, 2023 WL 8104876, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler

3 Nov. 21, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (not designated for publication)

(collecting cases). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus in each cause

number.

GINA M. BENAVIDES Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the 6th day of June, 2024.