Full text
in Re Humberto Rosales Cruz
NUMBER 13-19-00332-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE HUMBERTO ROSALES CRUZ
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes1
Relator Humberto Rosales Cruz, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause through which he seeks to compel the trial court to rule on relator’s motion seeking free copies of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record in cause number CR-2827-14-H(1) in the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel *2 is a purely ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding); 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, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (“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 supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the appendix or record” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. As the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to a writ of mandamus. Lizcano v. Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (Alcala, J. concurring); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record).
In this case, the petition for writ of mandamus fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it, inter alia, lacks an appendix or record. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. We further note that an indigent criminal defendant is generally not entitled to a free transcription of prior proceedings for use in pursuing post-conviction *3 habeas relief. In re Trevino, 79 S.W.3d 794, 796 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2002, orig. proceeding); In re Strickhausen, 994 S.W.2d 936, 937 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding); see In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d at 334; In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d at 704.
GREGORY T. PERKES Justice
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 3rd day of July, 2019.
Footnotes
[1] See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).