NUMBER 13-14-00174-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE JAVIER CANALES
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Javier Canales, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in
the above cause on March 20, 2014, seeking to compel the trial court to rule on a motion
to vacate or set aside relator’s felony conviction.
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
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).
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).
Relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. 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 established that: (1) the motion
was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested
a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule. In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d
659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d
860, 861 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding). Relator has not furnished an appendix
2
sufficient to support his claim for relief insofar as relator has not demonstrated that his
pleadings were presented to the respondent and the respondent refused to rule on them.
Third, jurisdiction over post-conviction relief from otherwise final felony convictions rests
with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07
(West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v.
Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re
Watson, 253 S.W.3d 319, 320 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding). The courts
of appeals have no role in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings under article
11.07 and have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in connection with such
proceedings. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, §§ 3; 5; Ater v. Eighth Court of
Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding); In re Briscoe,
230 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); In re McAfee,
53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
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. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is
DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
24th day of March, 2014.
3