In Re Douglas Alan Burden--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-11-00480-CR ________________ IN RE DOUGLAS ALAN BURDEN ________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Douglas Alan Burden filed a writ of mandamus, in which he complains that in his underlying criminal case, the trial court entered a defective certification and failed to correct its certification. Because the information received from the trial court in Burden s underlying criminal case indicated that the case was a plea bargain and did not involve revocation of community supervision, this Court issued an opinion dismissing Burden s appeal for want of jurisdiction on August 7, 2003. See Burden v. State, No. 0903-284-CR, 2003 WL 21831899, at *1 (Tex. App. Beaumont Aug. 7, 2003, no pet.) (not designated for publication). The trial court s only duty thereafter was to enforce our mandate, which issued on October 21, 2003. See Tex. R. App. P. 51.2. We may grant mandamus relief only if the relator demonstrates that the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial, and that the relator has no other adequate legal 1 remedy. See State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Burden has not shown that he is entitled to the relief sought. See id. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. In addition, we addressed this issue in two prior petitions for writ of mandamus filed by Burden. In re Burden, No. 09-09-00403-CV, 2009 WL 3030335, at *1 (Tex. App. Beaumont Sept. 24, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Burden, No. 09-0800228-CV, 2008 WL 2369137, at *1 (Tex. App. Beaumont June 12, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Burden raises no new issues or arguments in this proceeding. We therefore find that this proceeding is frivolous. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.054(1)(C) (West 2002). PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Opinion Delivered August 31, 2011 Do Not Publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.