Background
Jason Omar Moreno filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus arising from two matters in the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County: trial court cause numbers CR-2486-94-A and J-370-94-F. The court of appeals docketed the proceedings as appellate cause numbers 13-26-00636-CR and 13-26-00637-CR.
Moreno asked the court of appeals to compel the trial court to rule on pending motions concerning his access to the appellate record and his application for a writ of habeas corpus.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied Moreno’s mandamus petition in both appellate cause numbers. The court stated that a criminal mandamus relator must establish both that no adequate legal remedy is available and that the requested act is ministerial rather than discretionary.
The court also explained that the relator bears the burden of demonstrating entitlement to relief and must submit a petition, appendix, and record sufficient to support the claim. After considering Moreno’s petition and the applicable law, the court concluded that he had not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. The opinion did not identify a more specific factual deficiency as the basis for that conclusion.
Key Takeaways
- The court denied mandamus relief in both appellate proceedings, 13-26-00636-CR and 13-26-00637-CR.
- A criminal mandamus petitioner must show both the absence of an adequate legal remedy and a clear right to performance of a ministerial act.
- Pro se litigants remain responsible for supplying a petition, appendix, and record sufficient to establish entitlement to extraordinary relief.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the demanding nature of mandamus review in Texas criminal matters. A request to compel trial-court action succeeds only when the relator establishes every requirement for extraordinary relief through a procedurally sufficient filing and supporting record.