In re Erick Herman Santos-Valdez Appeal from 56th District Court of Galveston County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May 20, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-21-00252-CR IN RE ERICK HERMAN SANTOS-VALDEZ, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 56th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11CR1634 MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 12, 2021, relator Erick Herman Santos-Valdez filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Lonnie Cox, presiding judge of the 56th District Court of Galveston County, to rule on his motion to obtain his appellate record. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that (1) the relator has no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief the relator seeks; and (2) what the relator seeks to compel involves a ministerial act rather than a discretionary act. In re Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494–95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). As the party seeking mandamus relief, relator has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding); In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). Relator has not met his burden. Relator has not provided a sworn or certified copy of every document that is material to relator’s claim for relief and was filed in the proceeding in the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(a); 52.7(a)(1). Relator has not established that he entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Hassan. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 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.
