IN RE: ROMAN VALVERDE PERALES--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Victoria County

Annotate this Case

NUMBER 13-06-000239-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN RE: ROMAN VALVERDE PERALES

____________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Ya ez, and Garza

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion[1]

Relator, Roman Valverde Perales, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on May 5, 2006, in which he requested this Court to direct the Honorable Laura A. Weiser, presiding judge of the County Court-at-Law No. 1 of Victoria County, Texas, to vacate her July 21, 2004 and August 10, 2005 orders in trial court cause No. 1-77,577. Relator also filed a motion for emergency stay in which he requested this Court to stay the July 21, 2004 and August 10, 2005 orders.

 

On May 11, 2006, this Court ordered a response and stayed the July 21, 2004 and August 10, 2005 orders.

Real party-in-interest, the State of Texas, represented by Dexter Eaves, Victoria County District Attorney, filed a response on May 19, 2006.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, response, and documents on file, is of the opinion that the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied.

The stay granted on May 11, 2006 in trial court cause No. 1-77,577 is ordered LIFTED. Relator=s petition for writ of mandamus is hereby DENIED. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.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

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this8th day of June, 2006.

 

[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).

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.