In re Juan Estrada Diaz III Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 of Hidalgo County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NUMBERS 13-22-00405-CR & 13-22-00406-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE JUAN ESTRADA DIAZ III On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1 Relator Juan Estrada Diaz III a/k/a Juan Diaz III Estrada seeks mandamus relief to correct jail time credit in trial court cause numbers CR-21-06193-A and CR-21-10379A in the County Court at Law No. 1 of Hidalgo County, Texas, filed respectively in our appellate cause numbers 13-22-00405-CR and 13-22-00406-CR. We address both original proceedings in this single memorandum opinion in the interests of judicial 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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). efficiency. 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). As it pertains to this case, mandamus relief may be available to correct errors pertaining to jail time credit. See In re Gomez, 268 S.W.3d 262, 264 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, orig. proceeding); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.03, § 2(a) (governing “credit on the defendant’s sentence”). 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 2 and record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (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 petitions for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. Therefore, we deny the petitions 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 7th day of September, 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.