In Re Wilfred Padilla Jr. A/K/A Wilfredo Padilla A/K/A Willie Padilla v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 12, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00434-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00434-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE WILFRED PADILLA JR. A/K/A WILFREDO PADILLA A/K/A WILLIE PADILLA

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Relator Wilfred Padilla Jr. a/k/a Wilfredo Padilla a/k/a Willie Padilla has filed a pro

se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his motion

seeking “Immediate Release from any further confinement due to a Lack of Subject Matter

Jurisdiction.” In 2013, this Court affirmed relator’s convictions for murder and engaging in

organized criminal activity. See Padilla v. State, No. 13-12-00007-CR, 2013 WL 9680865,

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). at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Oct. 24, 2013, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not

designated for publication); see also State v. Padilla, No. 13-11-00682-CR, 2011 WL

5515555, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Nov. 4, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication) (affirming an order suppressing evidence).

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 Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837,

839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding); 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.”). This burden includes providing a sufficient record to

establish the right to mandamus relief. In re Schreck, 642 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 2022, orig. proceeding); In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d at 839; see also TEX. R. APP. P.

52.3(k)(1)(A) (delineating the required form and content for a petition in an original

2 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,

is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. Further,

we note that the exclusive method for a collateral attack on a final felony conviction is

through a writ of habeas corpus filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; Ater v. Eighth Ct. of Apps., 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (“We are the only court with jurisdiction in final post-

conviction felony proceedings.”); see also Calton v. Schiller, 498 S.W.3d 247, 252 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. denied). 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 12th day of September, 2024.