In re Marcus DeLeon

Corpus Christi and Edinburg, Texas - Relator Marcus DeLeon, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause through which he requests that we direct the trial court to issue a ruling and grant relator's "Motion for Production of Evidence.”.

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

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.”); see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3; Lizcano v.

Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (Alcala, J.

concurring); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).. 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);

id. 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 relator has not met his burden to obtain relief.



Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. See In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d at 334; In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d at 704.