In re Gustavo Tijerina-Sandoval

Relator Gustavo Tijerina-Sandoval filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the

above cause on May 3, 2018.2 Through this original proceeding, relator contends that the trial court lacked discretion to allow the State to exercise a peremptory challenge on

a juror after the juror had been accepted by both the State and relator. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 35.13 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.) (“A juror in a capital

case in which the state has made it known it will seek the death penalty, held to be

qualified, shall be passed for acceptance or challenge first to the state and then to the

defendant. Challenges to jurors are either peremptory or for cause.”). Here, after

questioning on voir dire, the State and relator accepted the juror; however, the juror

subsequently advised the trial court that an acquaintance had been arrested for murder.

The juror stated that this occurrence would not affect his ability to serve as a juror. The

State moved to strike the juror for cause, but the trial court denied its motion and allowed

the State to exercise a peremptory challenge on that juror over the relator’s objection.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish that it has no

adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm, and that what it 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) (per curiam); 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).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not met his burden

3



to obtain mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.