In Re MacArio Rincon v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 6, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00243-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00243-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE MACARIO RINCON

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1

By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Macario Rincon seeks to “vacate

and void all illegal confinement and restraint.” Relater asserts, inter alia, that his trial

counsel was ineffective and that his sentence of imprisonment was excessive. Relator

has previously filed a petition for writ of mandamus regarding a similar issue. See In re

Rincon, No. 13-24-00281-CR, 2024 WL 3197684, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–

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). Edinburg June 26, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(denying relief where relator asserted that an “enhancement” on his August 26, 2019

judgment of conviction was illegal and void).

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 In re Schreck, 642 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2022, orig.

proceeding); In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021,

orig. proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (delineating the required contents for

the appendix in an original proceeding), R. 52.7(a) (providing that the relator “must file” a

record including specific matters); 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.”).

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

and relator’s failure to provide an adequate appendix and record, is of the opinion that

2 relator 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.

JON WEST Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the 6th day of May, 2025.