in Re Victor Prieto Azamar

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 25, 2018
• Docket: 13-18-00312-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-18-00312-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

IN RE VICTOR PRIETO AZAMAR ____________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez1

Relator Victor Prieto Azamar, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of

mandamus in the above cause on June 19, 2018, seeking to compel the trial court to (1)

provide him with copies of his trial records and (2) furnish him with appointed counsel.

Relator plans to pursue an application for writ of habeas corpus.

On August 22, 2013, appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault. This

Court affirmed relator’s conviction on direct appeal. See Azamar v. State, No. 13-13-

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions); id. R. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”). 00488-CR, 2015 WL 2452611, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 21, 2015, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Azamar v. State, 13-17-00479-CR,

2017 WL 4837846, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 26, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication) (dismissing relator’s appeal for want of jurisdiction).

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has no

adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel

is a purely ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. In re Harris,

491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding); 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).

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

relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig.

proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled

to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements, the relator must

include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the

appendix or record” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the

contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.”

See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. As the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden

of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to

mandamus relief. Lizcano v. Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)

(orig. proceeding) (Alcala, J. concurring); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; see TEX. R. APP. P.

2 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the

required contents for the record).

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

is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ Justice

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

Delivered and filed the 25th day of June, 2018.