IN RE: MAURICIO CELIS--Appeal from 148th District Court of Nueces County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-09-00427-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE MAURICIO CELIS On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Prohibition. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1 Relator, Mauricio Celis, filed an Emergency Application for Leave to File an Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Prohibition and Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Prohibition and Motion for Temporary Relief 2 in the above cause on July 24, 2009, complaining that the respondent, the Honorable Louis Sturns, abused 1 See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) ( W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ); T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions). 2 W e dism iss relator's application for leave to file the petition for writ of m andam us and/or writ of prohibition as m oot. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure no longer require the relator to file a m otion or application for leave in an original proceeding. See generally T EX . R. A PP . P. 52, cm t. to 1997 revision. his discretion in granting a motion to recuse the Honorable J. Manuel Bañales from presiding over two of relator s cases. Mandamus relief may be granted if the relator shows that: (1) the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial; and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law. See Deleon v. Dist. Clerk, 187 S.W.3d 473, 474 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding). The relator must have a clear right to the relief sought and the merits of the relief sought must be beyond dispute. See id. The requirement of a clear legal right necessitates that the law plainly describes the duty to be performed such that there is no room for the exercise of discretion. See id. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and/or writ of prohibition, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought. See TEX . R. CIV. P. 18a(f); De Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); In re Lutz, 164 S.W.3d 721, 723-724 (Tex. App. El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding); Dist. Judges of Collin County v. Comm'rs Court of Collin County, 677 S.W.2d 743, 745 (Tex. App. Dallas 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 49 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist] 1994, writ denied). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and/or writ of prohibition, and motion for temporary relief, are DENIED. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Do not publish. See TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this 24th day of July, 2009. 2 3
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.
