NUMBER 13-18-00312-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
IN RE VICTOR PRIETO AZAMAR
____________________________________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez1
Relator Victor Prieto Azamar, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in the above cause on June 19, 2018, seeking to compel the trial court to (1)
provide him with copies of his trial records and (2) furnish him with appointed counsel.
Relator plans to pursue an application for writ of habeas corpus.
On August 22, 2013, appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault. This
Court affirmed relator’s conviction on direct appeal. See Azamar v. State, No. 13-13-
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions); id. R. 52.8(d)
(“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case,” but when “denying relief,
the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”).
00488-CR, 2015 WL 2452611, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 21, 2015, no pet.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Azamar v. State, 13-17-00479-CR,
2017 WL 4837846, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 26, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.,
not designated for publication) (dismissing relator’s appeal for want of jurisdiction).
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 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. As the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden
of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to
mandamus relief. Lizcano v. Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)
(orig. proceeding) (Alcala, J. concurring); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; see TEX. R. APP. P.
2
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,
is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice
Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
25th day of June, 2018.
3
in Re Victor Prieto Azamar
Combined Opinion