NUMBERS 13-11-00273-CR, 13-11-00274-CR,
AND 13-11-00275-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE BILLY JOE HARRIS
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam[1]
Relator, Billy Joe Harris, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above causes on April 29, 2011. Relator contends that the trial court abused its discretion (1) in “refusing to allow a retained psychologist to examine the defendant,” and (2) by issuing a “gag” order which requires relator to cease publishing an advertisement in a local newspaper. The Court requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real party in interest, the State of Texas, acting by and through the District Attorney in and for Jackson County, Texas.
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.”).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the response thereto, 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 in these causes 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Do not publish.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
12th day of May, 2011.
[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).