In re Rosendo Padilla Jr. Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 of Cameron County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NUMBER 13-21-00029-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE ROSENDO PADILLA JR. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1 Relator Rosendo Padilla Jr., proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause through which he requests that we direct the trial court to make a “Final Judicial Determination” and submit a statement of facts regarding relator’s pending “Motion to Void Judgment,” “Motion to Take Judicial Notice,” and “Motion to Dismiss.” Relator asserts that county courts at law can issue habeas corpus relief for misdemeanor convictions and that he has provided the trial court with evidence in support 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.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). of his claim for habeas relief. Relator argues, inter alia, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction; relator’s guilty plea was not voluntary; the trial court’s fact-finding process was not constitutionally valid; relator was provided with ineffective assistance of counsel; and relator’s conviction was secured by false evidence. Relator also asserts that there has been a thirty-two-month delay in processing the “appeal” of his conviction. 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 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. 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.”); 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); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).. 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. 2 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 relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. See In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d at 334; In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d at 704. JAIME TIJERINA Justice Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed on the 26th day of January, 2021. 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.