IN RE THE STATE OF TEXASAppeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Victoria County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-13-00539-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. STEPHEN B. TYLER On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1 Relator, the State of Texas ex rel. Stephen B. Tyler, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the respondent, the Honorable Daniel Gilliam, Presiding Judge of County Court at Law No. Two of Victoria County, Texas, to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning his order granting an instructed verdict and the resulting entry of a judgment of acquittal in trial court cause number 2100157, the State of Texas v. Michael Chavez. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ( When 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). To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show: (1) that he has no adequate remedy at law, and (2) that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of App. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, relator s 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 PER CURIAM Do not publish.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). Delivered and filed the 9th day of October, 2013. 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.