NUMBERS 13-09-00634-CR
13-09-00635-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
IN RE: ADAN PEREZ, JR.
____________________________________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Yañez, Benavides, and Vela
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Adan Perez, Jr., pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus2 in the above
causes on November 23, 2009, asking this Court to direct the respondent, the presiding
judge of the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, to provide him with an
opportunity to purchase the reporter’s record and other records pertaining to relator’s 1990
conviction.3 We deny the petition for writ of mandamus for the reasons stated herein.
1
See T EX . R . A PP . P . 5 2 .8 (d ) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand dow n an opinio n but
is not required to do so.”); T EX . R . A PP . P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).
2
Relator also filed a "m otion for leave" to file this petition for writ of m andam us. W e dism iss relator's
m otion for leave to file the petition for writ of m andam us as m oot because the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure no longer require the relator to file a m otion for leave in an original proceeding. See generally T EX .
R. A PP . P. 52 & cm t.
3
Relator raised this sam e issue in a previous petition for writ of m andam us, which was denied by this
Court on Septem ber 22, 2009. See In re Perez, Nos. 13-09-00525-CR & 13-09-00526-CR, 2009 Tex. App.
LEXIS 7454, at *2-3 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi Sept. 22, 2009, orig. proceeding) (per curiam ) ( m em . op., not
First, the petition for writ of mandamus fails to comply with the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See generally TEX . R. APP. P. 52.3. Second, relator has not
demonstrated that respondent expressly refused to rule on relator’s request or that an
unreasonable amount of time has passed since the request was filed. See In re Dimas,
88 S.W.3d 349, 351 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62
S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d
424, 426 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); accord O'Connor v. First
Ct. of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Third, as a general rule,
an indigent criminal defendant is not entitled to a free transcription of prior proceedings for
use in pursuing post-conviction habeas relief. In re Trevino, 79 S.W.3d 794, 796 (Tex.
App.–Corpus Christi 2002, orig. proceeding); see In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 693
(Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding) (requiring an indigent criminal defendant
to show that the habeas corpus action is not frivolous and there is a specific need for the
trial records which are sought); Escobar v. State, 880 S.W.2d 782, 783 (Tex.
App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, order); Eubanks v. Mullin, 909 S.W.2d 574, 576-77 (Tex.
App.–Fort Worth 1995, orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought, and the
petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8. Accordingly,
the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed
the 1st day of December, 2009.
designated for publication).
2