IN RE: Arturo Madariaga.

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg.

IN RE: Arturo Madariaga.

NUMBER 13–16–00122–CV

Decided: February 24, 2016

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Arturo Madariaga, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief on February 23, 2016.2  Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to compel the trial court to abate the underlying civil forfeiture case or continue the February 29, 2016 trial date until the related criminal proceedings have been finalized.

“Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal.”  In re Frank Motor Co., 361 S.W.3d 628, 630 (Tex.2012) (orig.proceeding);  see In re Olshan Found.  Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex.2010) (orig.proceeding);  In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex.2004) (orig.proceeding);  Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992) (orig.proceeding).  It is the relator's burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief.  Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1992) (orig.proceeding);  In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding).

A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law.  In re Olshan Found.  Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d at 888;  Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.  In determining whether appeal is an adequate remedy, we consider whether the benefits outweigh the detriments of mandamus review.  In re BP Prods.  N. Am., Inc., 244 S.W.3d 840, 845 (Tex.2008) (orig.proceeding);  In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief.  See, e.g. In re Gore, 251 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2007, orig. proceeding) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in abating a civil forfeiture case pending resolution of the criminal charges);  In re Verbols, 10 S.W.3d 825, 828 (Tex.App.–Waco 2000, orig. proceeding [mand. denied] ) (holding that “blanket” assertions of the privilege against self-incrimination are impermissible).  Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief are DENIED.  See Tex.R.App. P. 52.8(a).

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

2.   This original proceeding arises from cause number 2015–DCL–04004 in the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, In the Matter of $47,943.14 in U.S. Currency, the Honorable Janet L. Leal presiding.

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1 FN1. 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).