NUMBER 13-09-00271-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam (1)
Relator, Alejandro Mata, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on May 18, 2009. We deny the petition as stated herein.
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. See 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." See id. "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.
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. 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. Specifically, for instance, the petition lacks an appendix and a record, fails to contain a "clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record," and is largely illegible. See id. 52.3(h). Second, relator has not met the requirements for mandamus relief. See Deleon, 187 S.W.3d at 474. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the 19th day of May, 2009.
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."); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).