Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jason Omar Moreno filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus arising from two proceedings in the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas: trial court cause numbers CR-2486-94-A and J-370-94-F. The court of appeals docketed the matters as appellate cause numbers 13-26-00636-CR and 13-26-00637-CR.
Moreno asked the court of appeals to compel the trial court to rule on pending motions concerning his access to the appellate record and his application for a writ of habeas corpus.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that a criminal-case relator seeking mandamus must establish both that no adequate legal remedy is available and that the requested act is ministerial rather than discretionary. A ministerial act is one for which unequivocal, well-settled, and controlling law permits only one rational decision.
The court also emphasized that the relator bears the burden of presenting a petition, appendix, and record sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary relief. After considering Moreno’s petition and the applicable law, the court concluded that he had not met that burden and denied mandamus relief in both appellate cause numbers.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal mandamus petitioner must show both the absence of an adequate legal remedy and a clear right to performance of a ministerial act.
- Pro se litigants remain responsible for supplying the facts, legal argument, appendix, and record necessary to support mandamus relief.
- The court denied Moreno’s petition in both related appellate proceedings because he failed to establish entitlement to relief.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that mandamus is an extraordinary, discretionary remedy and that a request to compel a trial-court ruling must be supported by a record and legal argument satisfying both elements of the governing standard. A court of appeals will not grant relief merely because a relator asserts that motions remain pending.