In Re Raymond Deba v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 3, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00042-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00042-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE RAYMOND DEBA

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron1

Relator Raymond Deba filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to

compel the district attorney “to follow the written law.” Relator contends generally that the

district attorney erred regarding the enhancement of his sentence in the underlying case.

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.011, 12.42.

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). 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 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); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d

424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see

generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.

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); see

Powell v. Hocker, 516 S.W.3d 488, 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). 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 the intermediate appellate courts may issue writs of mandamus against specified

2 judges in our district and “all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.”

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b); see In re State ex rel. Best, 616 S.W.3d 594, 599

& n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (orig. proceeding). We have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of

mandamus against individuals or entities other than those specified in the government

code unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§ 22.221(a), (b); see e.g., In re Bledsoe, 532 S.W.3d 826, 827 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

2017, orig. proceeding); In re Resendez, 501 S.W.3d 680, 681 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

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

is of the opinion that it should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We lack general

mandamus jurisdiction over the district attorney, and relator has not shown that the

issuance of a writ against the district attorney is necessary to enforce our appellate

jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b); In re Bledsoe, 532 S.W.3d at

827; In re Resendez, 501 S.W.3d at 681; In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d at 182. Accordingly,

we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

JENNY CRON Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the 3rd day of February, 2025.