IN RE: STEVEN PEREZ (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Steven Perez filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the above causes on October 31, 2016, seeking to compel the trial court to “enter orders of acquittal of both murder and manslaughter and an order to the appropriate state officials to release him immediately.”² This Court previously affirmed relator's conviction for murder. See Perez v. State, No. 13-08-296-CR, 2009 WL 1607811, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 26, 2009, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Perez v. State, No. 13-16-00297-CR, 2016 WL 3548664, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 23, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op. per curiam, not designated for publication); Perez v. State, No. 13-08-433-CR, 2010 WL 2697292, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 8, 2010, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re Perez, No. 13-10-00211-CR, 2010 WL 1509576, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Apr. 13, 2010, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam). This original proceeding joins a pro se appeal filed by relator in our cause number 13-16-00517-CR attacking an “order dismissing his petition for writ of audita querela.”

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).

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 mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Relator's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in these causes is granted; however, relator's petition for writ of mandamus in each of these causes is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

FOOTNOTES

2.   These original proceedings arise from trial court cause numbers 07-CR-0159-B and 07-CR-0159-B(S1) in the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

PER CURIAM