in Re Quirino Torres

13-22-00443-CR | Tex. App. | Sep 30, 2022

NUMBERS 13-22-00442-CR & 13-22-00443-CR

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI EDINBURG IN RE QUIRINO TORRES On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva 1 Relator Quirino Torres seeks mandamus relief to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for nunc pro tunc judgment in trial court cause numbers B-21-2009-0-CR-B and B-21-2022-0-CR-B in the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas, filed respectively in our appellate cause numbers 13-22-00442-CR and 13-22-00443-CR. We address both original proceedings in this single memorandum opinion in the interests of judicial efficiency.

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" date_filed="2016-05-25" court="Tex. Crim. App." case_name="Harris, Roderick">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. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207" date_filed="2007-09-26" court="Tex. Crim. App." case_name="State Ex Rel. Young v. SIXTH JUD. DISTRICT">236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

“A trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on motions properly filed and pending before it, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act.” In re Henry , 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see In re Rangel , 570 S.W.3d 968, 969 (Tex. App.—Waco 2019, orig. proceeding). A relator must establish that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable time. In re Robbins , 622 S.W.3d 600, 601 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) ; In re Gibson , 533 S.W.3d 916, 917 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, orig. proceeding).

It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young , 236 S.W.3d 207" date_filed="2007-09-26" court="Tex. Crim. App." case_name="State Ex Rel. Young v. SIXTH JUD. DISTRICT">236 S.W.3d at 210; 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.”). In addition to other requirements, the relator must include a statement of facts and a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record . See generally T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3 (governing the form and contents for a petition). Further, the relator must file an appendix and record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 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 petitions for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. Therefore, we deny the petitions for writ of mandamus. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8.



Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed on the 30th day of September, 2022.


[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).