In Re Reidie Jackson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 25, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00574-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00574-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE REIDIE JACKSON

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Longoria, Tijerina, and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Reidie Jackson contends that the

trial court erred by “not ruling on, inter alia, the motion(s) to execute the settlement

agreement and/or motion to enforce the settlement agreement.”

“Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited

circumstances.” State ex rel. Wice v. Fifth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps., 581 S.W.3d 189, 193

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). (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (orig. proceeding). 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). 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). This burden includes providing a sufficient record to

establish the right to mandamus relief. In re Schreck, 642 S.W.3d at 927; In re Pena, 619

S.W.3d at 839; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (delineating the required contents for the

appendix in an original proceeding), 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 the petition for writ of mandamus should be

denied. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

NORA L. LONGORIA Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the 25th day of November, 2024.