NUMBER 13-18-00414-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
IN RE ORLANDO CAMPOS
____________________________________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa 1
Relator Orlando Campos, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus
in the above cause on August 2, 2018, seeking to compel the trial court to provide him
with a certification showing that he has the right to appeal in trial court cause number B-
15-2049-0-CR-A. 2 Although relator’s pleading is unclear, it appears that relator also
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.”).
2 Relator has also pursued separate appeals arising from this same trial court cause number. See
Campos v. State, No. 13-18-00221-CR, 2018 WL 2440517, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 31, 2018,
no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Campos v. State, 13-18-00071-CR, 2018 WL
1192617, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 8, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication);
seeks, inter alia, to compel the trial court to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of
law and to correct a defective or inaccurate clerk’s record.
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.”); see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3.
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, and the
petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8. Accordingly,
the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.
LETICIA HINOJOSA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed this the
2nd day of August, 2018.
Campos v. State, 13-16-00482-CR, 2016 WL 5941881, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 13, 2016, no
pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
2