NUMBER 13-10-00568-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE MARCO ANTONIO BARRIENTOS
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Vela Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1
Relator, Marco Antonio Barrientos, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause through which he contends that the trial court erred in failing to disqualify the Cameron County District Attorney and his office from prosecuting an indictment against him. The Court requested and received a response from the real party in interest, the State of Texas, acting by and through the Criminal District Attorney of Cameron County, Texas. As stated herein, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
1 See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).
Mandamus relief may be granted if the relator shows that: (1) the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial; and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals At Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding); Deleon v. Dist. Clerk, 187 S.W.3d 473, 474 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding). The relator must have a “clear right” to the relief sought and the merits of the relief sought must be “beyond dispute.” Deleon, 187 S.W.3d at 474. “The requirement of a clear legal right necessitates that the law plainly describes the duty to be performed such that there is no room for the exercise of discretion.” See id. Stated otherwise, relator must show that she has a clear right to the relief sought, as when the facts and circumstances dictate but one rational decision under unequivocal, well-settled and clearly controlling legal principles. State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210.
Based on the petition and record provided, relator has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.8. First, under the circumstances of the present case, relator has not established that he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. Cf. In re Guerra, 235 S.W.3d 392, 421 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2007, orig. proceeding). In this regard, we note that appellate courts routinely review the denial of a motion to disqualify the prosecution by appeal. See, e.g., Landers v. State, 256 S.W.3d 295, 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Gonzalez v. State, 115 S.W.2d 278, 286 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2003, pet. ref’d); Zarychta v. State, 44 S.W.3d 155, 162 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d). Second, relator has not shown that “unequivocal, well-settled and clearly controlling legal principles” dictate that he has a clear right to the relief sought under the facts and circumstances shown in this proceeding. State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the response thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not shown herself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See id. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish. See TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 28th day of October, 2010.