in Re Mike Mendoza, Jr.
467 S.W.3d 76
Tex. App.2015Background
- Relator Mike Mendoza, Jr., an incarcerated pro se litigant, filed a mandamus petition (01-14-01012-CR) asking the appellate court to compel Judge Denise Bradley to rule on his Chapter 64 post-conviction forensic DNA testing motion allegedly filed May 2013 in Cause No. 952290-B (Ex parte Mendoza).
- The First Court of Appeals originally issued a memorandum opinion on January 27, 2015 denying the mandamus petition for lack of a duty/jurisdiction because Mendoza’s habeas or criminal proceeding did not appear to be pending.
- Mendoza timely moved for en banc reconsideration claiming his habeas application (filed under Art. 11.07 in 2010) remained pending and that service on the district attorney’s office was proper.
- The panel withdrew the January memorandum, issued a new opinion for the mandamus cause, dismissed the en banc motion as moot, but again denied mandamus on the merits.
- The court held Mendoza failed to meet procedural and record requirements for mandamus: his petition lacked a certified appendix, sworn/certified copies of material filings, proof of service, and other Rule 52.3 contents; the record did not show the trial court received and refused to rule on the DNA motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel trial court to rule on DNA motion | Mendoza: he filed a Chapter 64 DNA motion in May 2013 and the trial court has a duty to rule | Respondent: no sufficient record shows the motion was presented to or refused by the trial court; procedural defects in mandamus petition | Denied — Mendoza failed to show the trial court had a ministerial duty to act or that it refused; no adequate record of filing/service |
| Whether relator met appellate mandamus procedural requirements | Mendoza: pro se status; asserts service and pending habeas justify relief | Court/Respondent: petition lacked certified appendix, proof of service, required Rule 52.3 contents, and competent record evidence | Denied — petition noncompliant with appellate rules; relator must meet same procedural standards |
| Whether appellate court had jurisdiction over a "free-floating" motion | Mendoza: contends motion filed in pending habeas (thus court has jurisdiction) | Court: even assuming jurisdiction, relator must establish entitlement to mandamus with proper record | Denied — court assumed jurisdiction but still denied on record/merits deficiencies |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate absent demand/refusal | Mendoza: implied that filing sufficed to require ruling | Court: relator must show a demand for performance and refusal | Denied — no evidence Mendoza requested the trial court rule or that it refused |
Key Cases Cited
- In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (describing mandamus prerequisites and ministerial-duty principles in criminal matters)
- Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (addressing jurisdictional questions for post-conviction proceedings)
- In re State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct. of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court must rule but not a particular way; mandamus compels timely ruling)
- Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (mandamus denied where relator failed to alert trial court or request hearing; procedural compliance required)
- In re Potts, 399 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (relator must bring forward necessary record to establish entitlement)
- In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001) (district clerk’s filing does not alone show the trial court had knowledge of the motion)
- Brookshire Bros., Inc. v. Smith, 176 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (motion for en banc reconsideration becomes moot when panel issues new opinion)