Case Information
*1 NUMBERS 13-16-00671-CR & 13-16-00672-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE DANIEL LOPEZ
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1
Relator Daniel Lopez, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in these causes seeking to compel (1) hearings on his motion for new trial; (2) the appointment of counsel for appeal; (3) copies of the clerk’s record and reporter’s records to be provided to him along with the “D.A.’s discovery”; and (4) a resolution regarding
relator’s contention that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel. *2 Relator appears to seek relief as against the trial court and the District Clerk of Nueces County.
These original proceedings arise from trial court cause number 15-CR-3266-H, docketed in our cause number 13-16-00671-CR, and trial court cause number 15-CR- 3995-H, docketed in our cause number 13-16-00672-CR. Both of these trial court causes arise from the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. Relator has two pending appeals in this Court, from these same trial court causes, docketed in our Court as cause numbers 13-16-00310-CR and 13-16-00311-CR. In each of these appeals, the record has been filed and relator is represented by appointed counsel, the Honorable Jacob Blizzard.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in each of these causes is denied. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM Do not publish.
T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
13th day of December, 2016.
2
[1] See T EX . R. A PP . 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).