In Re: Benjamin Wayne McCoin--Appeal from 102nd District Court of Red River County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-10-00139-CR ______________________________ IN RE: BENJAMIN WAYNE MCCOIN Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter MEMORANDUM OPINION Benjamin Wayne McCoin has filed with the Court a document that McCoin titles a writ of mandamus, by which we infer McCoin petitions this Court for mandamus relief. McCoin s petition is eight pages of angry, insulting, and occasionally vulgar attacks upon the trial court and this Court. We are unable to discern any request for relief made in this petition. McCoin complains of alleged lies on the part of the trial court; a faulty indictment; and generally alleges himself to be innocent.1 McCoin s petition does not comply with Rule 52.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Just as examples, there is no identification of the parties and no description of why McCoin believes himself entitled to mandamus relief.2 Also, McCoin does not include a prayer which contain[s] a short conclusion that clearly states the nature of the relief sought. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(i). 1 McCoin was convicted of attempted capital murder and sentenced to ninety-nine years incarceration. This Court affirmed his conviction. McCoin v. State, 56 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2001, no pet.). 2 Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that issues only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law when no other adequate remedy by law is available. State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex. 1984). Due to the nature of this remedy, it is McCoin's burden to properly request and show entitlement to the mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ("Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks."). 2 As McCoin has requested no relief, we may grant none. Horrocks v. Tex. Dep t of Transp., 852 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam) (appellate court may only grant relief requested by party). We deny McCoin s petition. Jack Carter Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: August 3, 2010 August 4, 2010 Do Not Publish 3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.
