IN RE ARMANDO RAMOS--Appeal from 103rd District Court of Cameron County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NUMBERS 13-09-00489-CR, 13-09-00490-CR, 13-09-00491-CR, & 13-09-00492-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE ARMANDO RAMOS On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1 Relator, Armando Ramos, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above causes on August 24, 2009, through which he contends that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences for his convictions in 1990 for sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault of a child. The Court requested and received a response to the petition for writ of 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). mandamus from the State of Texas, acting by and through the District Attorney for Cameron County, Texas. 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 the reply thereto, 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 PER CURIAM Do not publish. See TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this 18th day of September, 2009. 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.