NUMBER 13-12-00414-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE EVERARDO HERNANDEZ
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Everardo Hernandez, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of
mandamus on June 27, 2012 through which he seeks to compel the trial court to set “a
speedy revocation hearing.” See Carney v. State, 573 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978) (en banc) (“The right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Constitutions of the
United States and Texas is applicable to probation revocation proceedings.”); Fariss v.
Tipps, 463 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tex. 1971) (original proceeding) (holding that relator was
entitled to a speedy trial in a probation revocation hearing because a revocation hearing
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).
was a criminal prosecution.”); see also Wisser v. State, 350 S.W.3d 161, 164 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.)/
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 Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). 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, 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. First, the
petition for writ of mandamus fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate
2
Procedure. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Second, relator has not demonstrated
that the trial court has been presented with and expressly refused to rule on relator’s
motion for speedy revocation hearing, or that an unreasonable amount of time has
passed since the motion 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, relator has not shown that he lacks
an adequate remedy by appeal. See, e.g., Wisser, 350 S.W.3d at 154 (handling
allegations regarding the trial court’s failure to grant a speedy revocation hearing on
appeal).
We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
29th day of June, 2012.
3
in Re Everardo Hernandez
Combined Opinion