In Re Samuel Longoria v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 5, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00033-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00033-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE SAMUEL LONGORIA

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Samuel Longoria asserts that: (1) the trial

court has a ministerial duty to hold a restitution hearing and to require the State to provide

relator with an inventory and the disposition of forfeited property; and (2) the trial court

must terminate the receivership and vacate the order to sell relator’s property because it

no longer has the ability to require him to make restitution. We deny the petition for writ

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. 47.1 (“The court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.”); id. R. 47.4 (explaining the differences between opinions and memorandum opinions). of mandamus.

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 City of Lubbock, 666 S.W.3d 546, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (orig.

proceeding); In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding).

It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief.

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); In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding). “Equitable principles are necessarily

involved when we consider whether mandamus . . . should issue.” In re Medina, 475

S.W.3d 291, 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (orig. proceeding); see In re State, 318 S.W.3d

908, 909 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Wise, 20

S.W.3d 894, 895 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

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

the State’s response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his

burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

JAIME TIJERINA Chief Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the 5th day of March, 2025.