NUMBER 13-15-00253-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE ERWIN BURLEY
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Erwin Burley, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in
the above cause on June 3, 2015, seeking to compel the trial court to rule on relator’s
petition for writ of habeas corpus. Relator alleges that his petition for writ of habeas
corpus was received by the Nueces County Clerk on March 17, 2015, but the trial court
has refused to issue a ruling thereon.
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).
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show: (1) that he has no
adequate remedy at law, and (2) that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act. In re
State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If
the relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus
should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of App. at Texarkana, 236
S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). It is 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, 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.
In this regard, it is clear that relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support
the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the
appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain
mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. For instance, relator has
not provided an appendix or record in support of his claim for mandamus relief. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See
id. R. 52.8(a).
2
PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
4th day of June, 2015.
3