in Re Norberto Manzanares
13-17-00608-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- Relator Norberto Manzanares, pro se, sought a writ of mandamus to compel his former trial counsel to provide a complete attorney-client file generated during his murder trial and conviction.
- Manzanares intends to use the file to pursue collateral review of his conviction and sentence.
- Mandamus relief requires showing (1) no adequate legal remedy and (2) that the act to be compelled is purely ministerial, not discretionary.
- A relator must support mandamus requests with facts and competent evidence in an appendix or record and provide clear legal argument per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.
- The Texas Court of Appeals may issue mandamus only against certain judges (or as necessary to enforce its jurisdiction); it lacks authority to compel private attorneys except to the extent necessary to enforce appellate jurisdiction.
- No appeal was pending, and Manzanares did not contend the writ was necessary to enforce the court’s jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals can compel former counsel to produce the attorney-client file via mandamus | Manzanares: relator sought order compelling counsel to produce file so he can pursue collateral review | Court/Respondent: court lacks mandamus jurisdiction over private attorneys absent need to enforce appellate jurisdiction | Denied — Court dismissed petition for want of jurisdiction because it cannot issue mandamus against an attorney and relator did not claim jurisdictional necessity |
| Whether relator met mandamus burden of showing no adequate remedy at law and that relief sought was ministerial | Manzanares: asserted need for file to seek collateral review (implying inadequate remedy) | Court: relator did not satisfy procedural/record requirements and jurisdictional limits bar relief | Not reached on merits; procedural and jurisdictional defects preclude relief |
| Whether relator complied with Rule 52 requirements for mandamus pleadings and record | Manzanares: filed pro se petition but did not supply requisite appendix/competent evidence citations | Court: emphasized relator must provide facts and record showing entitlement | Court relied on procedural rules to note relator’s burden but dismissal rested on jurisdiction |
| Whether mandamus is available to enforce appellate jurisdiction in this posture | Manzanares: did not assert mandamus was necessary to enforce appellate jurisdiction | Court: absent such assertion and without pending appeal, no basis to issue writ against attorney | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (mandamus prerequisites and standards)
- In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mandamus standards and relief requirements)
- State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (mandamus available only against judges within court’s jurisdiction)
- Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (pro se mandamus applicant must show entitlement to extraordinary relief)