in Re: Mauricio Celis

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 24, 2009
Docket13-09-00427-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re: Mauricio Celis (in Re: Mauricio Celis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in Re: Mauricio Celis, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion



NUMBER 13-09-00427-CR



COURT OF APPEALS



THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG



IN RE MAURICIO CELIS


On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

and/or Writ of Prohibition.



MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion (1)



Relator, Mauricio Celis, filed an "Emergency Application for Leave to File an Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Prohibition and Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Prohibition and Motion for Temporary Relief" (2)

in the above cause on July 24, 2009, complaining that the respondent, the Honorable Louis Sturns, abused his discretion in granting a motion to recuse the Honorable J. Manuel Bañales from presiding over two of relator's cases.

Mandamus relief may be granted if the relator shows that: (1) the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial; and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law. See Deleon v. Dist. Clerk, 187 S.W.3d 473, 474 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding). The relator must have a "clear right" to the relief sought and the merits of the relief sought must be "beyond dispute." See id. "The requirement of a clear legal right necessitates that the law plainly describes the duty to be performed such that there is no room for the exercise of discretion." See id.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and/or writ of prohibition, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(f); De Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); In re Lutz, 164 S.W.3d 721, 723-724 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding); Dist. Judges of Collin County v. Comm'rs Court of Collin County, 677 S.W.2d 743, 745 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 49 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1994, writ denied). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and/or writ of prohibition, and motion for temporary relief, are DENIED. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).



PER CURIAM



Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).



Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 24th day of July, 2009.





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."); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

2. We dismiss relator's application for leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus and/or writ of prohibition as moot. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure no longer require the relator to file a motion or application for leave in an original proceeding. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 52, cmt. to 1997 revision.



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Lutz
164 S.W.3d 721 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
De Leon v. Aguilar
127 S.W.3d 1 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Metzger v. Sebek
892 S.W.2d 20 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Deleon v. District Clerk
187 S.W.3d 473 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)
District Judges of Collin County v. Commissioners Court of Collin County
677 S.W.2d 743 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re: Mauricio Celis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mauricio-celis-texapp-2009.