NUMBER 13-13-00503-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE ROEL CERDA
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Roel Cerda, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus on
September 20, 2013, through which he seeks to compel the trial court to consider and
rule on relator’s motion for nunc pro tunc judgment.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish both that he has no
adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel
is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young
v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of App. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App.
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).
1
2007) (orig. proceeding). If relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the
petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. See id.
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, the 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 included with his petition an appendix or record sufficient to
support his claim for relief. Accordingly, 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. 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Do not publish.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 25th
day of September, 2013.
2