NUMBER 13-16-00304-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE RANDALL BOLIVAR
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator Randall Bolivar, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in
the above cause on June 6, 2016. April 29, 2011. Relator contends that his conviction
for murder is void because the trial court was disqualified to proceed over his case.
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
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).
v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App.
2007). If the relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of
mandamus should be denied. See id. It is the 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. Relator has raised the
same issue presented in this original proceeding in a separate appeal currently pending
in this Court in our cause number 13-14-00157-CR. Thus, relator has an adequate
remedy by appeal. See In re Lerma, 144 S.W.3d 21, 25 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, orig.
proceeding); see also In re Durham, No. 09-11-00579-CR, 2011 WL 5389878, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont Nov. 9, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam, not designated
for publication). Accordingly, 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Do not publish.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
7th day of June, 2016.
2