In re Valentin Torres Alvarez Appeal from 103rd District Court of Cameron County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-20-00259-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE VALENTIN TORRES ALVAREZ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Hinojosa, Perkes, and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes1 Relator Valentin Torres Alvarez, proceeding pro se, an incarcerated inmate, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause through which he requests that we direct the trial court to rule on his motion for accrued time. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm and that what he seeks to compel is 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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). 1 a purely ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”); see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3; Lizcano v. Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (Alcala, J. concurring). In addition to other requirements, the relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. The relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); id. R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has failed to meet his burden to obtain mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3, 52.7; Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and all relief sought therein. See In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d at 334; In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d at 704. 2 GREGORY T. PERKES Justice Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 15th day of July, 2020. 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.
