NUMBERS
13-16-00558-CR
13-16-00559-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE ISADOLL MANGUM
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator Isadoll Mangum filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the above
causes on October 13, 2016 seeking to compel the trial court to rule on and grant a motion
for nunc pro tunc judgment.2
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).
2 This original proceeding arises from trial court cause numbers 10-136 and 10-137 in the 130th
District Court of Matagorda County, Texas, and also appears to involve trial court cause number 08-081 in
the 130th District Court.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the 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 purely ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. In re Harris,
491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re McCann, 422
S.W.3d 701, 704 (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 Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
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.”). In addition to other requirements, the 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. 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). In this case, the relator furnished an incomplete appendix or record in support
of his request for relief.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not met his burden to obtain
2
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
18th day of October, 2016.
3