In re Tony Cano Rodriguez Appeal from 148th District Court of Nueces County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-22-00180-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE TONY CANO RODRIGUEZ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1 Tony Cano Rodriguez has filed a pro se pleading in this Court entitled “Petition for Release Because of Delay in Trial.” In substance, it appears that Rodriguez is requesting this Court to grant mandamus relief regarding his complaints of, inter alia, a delayed trial, the ineffective assistance of counsel, and the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence. 2 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 If we were to construe Rodriguez’s pleading as a petition for writ of habeas corpus given his assertion that he is being “illegally confined” in jail, we would lack jurisdiction over his complaint. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d). In short, we do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal 2 In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding); In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); 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) (orig. proceeding). It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210; In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding); see also 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.”). In addition to other requirements, the relator must include a statement of facts and 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 (governing the form and contents for a petition). Further, the relator must file an appendix and record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) matters. See Ex parte Braswell, 630 S.W.3d 600, 601–02 (Tex. App.—Waco 2021, orig. proceeding); In re Quinata, 538 S.W.3d 120, 120–21 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, orig. proceeding); In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 356, 356–57 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). 2 (specifying the required contents for the appendix); 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 Rodriguez has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8. NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b). Delivered and filed on the 27th day of April, 2022. 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.