IN RE: ADAN PEREZ, JR.--Appeal from 347th District Court of Nueces County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBERS 13-10-00067-CR & 13-10-00068-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE: ADAN PEREZ, JR. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1 Relator, Adan Perez, Jr., pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above causes on February 16, 2010, through which he complained that the trial court has not allowed him to purchase the reporter s record and other documents or records pertaining to relator s 1990 conviction for murder on a plea of guilty.2 The Court requested and 1 See T EX . R . A PP . P . 5 2 .8(d) ( W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand dow n 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 Relator has previously raised this sam e issue in other proceedings before the Court. See also In re Perez, Nos. 13-09-00634-CR & 13-09-00635-CR, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 9254, at *1-2 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi Dec. 1, 2009) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam ) (not designated for publication); In re Perez, Nos. 13-09-00525-CR & 13-09-00526-CR, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 7454, at *1-2 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi Sept. 22, 2009) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam ) (not designated for publication). received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real party in interest, the State of Texas by and through the District Attorney in and for Nueces County, Texas. According to the response filed by the real party in interest, the records at issue were never prepared, and the time periods for retaining said records have expired. See Tex. Gov t Code Ann. ยง 52.046(a)(4) (Vernon 2005); Tex. R. App. P. 13.6. A writ of mandamus will not issue if it would be useless or unavailing, or if the ultimate object sought to be accomplished is impossible of attainment. See Holcombe v. Fowler, 118 Tex. 42, 9 S.W.2d 1028 (1928); A American Stamp & Novelty Mfg. Co. v. Wettman, 658 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no writ). Accordingly, the Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the response thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus in the foregoing causes is DENIED. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Do not publish. See TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 12th day of March, 2010. 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.
