IN RE: CARLOS MARTINEZ--Appeal from 351st District Court of Harris County

NUMBER 13-05-597-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_________________________________________________________________

IN RE: CARLOS MARTINEZ

_________________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus _________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Ya ez, and Rodriguez

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion[1]

Relator, Carlos Martinez, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on September 16, 2005. In his petition, relator complains that the Honorable Mark Kent Ellis of the 351st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, failed to comply with a July 2, 2004, order of this Court in relator=s appeal of a felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance. See generally Martinez v. State, No. 13-03-070-CR, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 7825 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi Aug. 24, 2004, no pet.). Relator specifically complains that the trial court failed to enter a certification of his right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Relator requests that we order the trial court to enter the certification or, in the alternative, proceed on the merits of appellant=s pro se brief as submitted and filed in his appeal.

Based on our review of the record in relator=s appeal, the trial court did not fail to respond to the Court=s order. On July 19, 2004, a supplemental clerk=s record was filed with the Court showing that the trial court entered a certification of relator=s right to appeal. See id. The trial court found that appellant had the right to appeal. See Martinez , 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 7825, *2. Further, we would note that the Court considered and extensively addressed the merits of the issues raised in appellant=s pro se in brief in its opinion on the appeal. See id. 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 7825, *6-*10.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 5th day of October, 2005.

[1] See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) (AWhen 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).