DENIED and Opinion Filed February 24, 2021
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-00005-CV
IN RE JUAN FRANCISCO TURCIOS, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 203rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-70886-P & F11-70896-P
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle
Opinion by Justice Myers
Juan Francisco Turcios has filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting
the Court to compel the trial court, the Dallas County District Attorney, or the Dallas
Police Department to produce two police offense reports that he alleges the
prosecution withheld from him before he entered a negotiated guilty plea. Relator
contends he needs the reports for use in a pending federal case. Relator states he
has subpoenaed the reports from the police department. He does not allege he has
any pending motions before the trial court.
This Court has jurisdiction to act only when the action is authorized by law.
See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Texas law
authorizes a court of appeals to issue writs of mandamus against district and county
judges and against other parties when necessary to enforce the court’s appellate
jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b). Relator’s requested
mandamus relief does not involve enforcing the appellate jurisdiction of this Court.
Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the Dallas
County District Attorney and the Dallas Police Department. See id.; see also In re
Tarver, No. 05-20-00926-CV, 2020 WL 6866567, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov.
23, 2020, original proceeding) (mem. op.) (court of appeals lacks mandamus
jurisdiction to order police department to turn over report); In re Butler, No. 01-13-
00177-CR, 2013 WL 1136856, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 19, 2013,
orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam, not designated for publication) (court of
appeals has no jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief ordering police officials to
compel production of reports).
To establish a right to mandamus relief against the trial court, relator must
show that the trial court violated a ministerial duty and he has no adequate remedy
at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig.
proceeding). Relator alleges only that the prosecutor withheld the documents before
trial and the police department has not responded to his subpoena. He does not
indicate he has any pending, unresolved motions before the trial court or has
requested the trial court perform a ministerial duty.
–2–
Furthermore, 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. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding). Relator has not filed any documents with this Court. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a) (requiring relator to file with his petition certified or sworn copies
of orders and documents material to his claims).
The record before us does not show relator requested, or the trial court has
failed to perform, any ministerial duty. Without a record showing the trial court has
refused to perform some ministerial duty, relator has not shown he is entitled to
mandamus relief against the trial court. See Weeks, 391 S.W.3d at 122; Walker, 827
S.W.2d at 837.
Having concluded we lack jurisdiction over the Dallas County District
Attorney and the Dallas Police Department, and further concluding there is no
showing of a basis for relief against the trial court, we deny the petition. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 52.8.
/Lana Myers/
LANA MYERS
JUSTICE
210005F.P05
–3–