In Re Mickey Boswell v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 17, 2023
• Docket: 13-23-00497-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-23-00497-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE MICKEY BOSWELL

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

Pro se relator Mickey Boswell has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to

compel the trial court to enter a ruling on his claims regarding a void judgment and an

improper nunc pro tunc judgment. Relator’s claims arise from trial court cause number

09-CR-1082-G in the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. Relator has

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). previously filed an original proceeding and a direct appeal from this same trial court cause

number. See In re Boswell, No. 13-22-00532-CR, 2022 WL 16758265, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg Nov. 7, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for

publication); Boswell v. State, Nos. 13-11-00785-CR, 13-11-00786-CR, & 13-11-00791-

CR, 2015 WL 5655823, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Sept. 24, 2015, pet.

ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

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. 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 State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210;

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.”); see generally TEX. R. APP. P.

52.3, 52.7(a).

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 relief.

2 See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d at 388. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus.

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the 17th day of November, 2023.