NUMBER 13-25-00042-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE RAYMOND DEBA

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron1 Relator Raymond Deba filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district attorney “to follow the written law.” Relator contends generally that the district attorney erred regarding the enhancement of his sentence in the underlying case.

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.011, 12.42.

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).

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. See 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 id.; In re Schreck, 642 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2022, orig. proceeding); In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.

Article V, § 6 of the Texas Constitution delineates the appellate jurisdiction of the courts of appeals, and states that the courts of appeals “shall have such other jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law.” TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6(a); see Powell v. Hocker, 516 S.W.3d 488, 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). The main source of original jurisdiction for the courts of appeals is provided by § 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221; In re Cook, 394 S.W.3d 668, 671 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, orig. proceeding). In pertinent part, this section provides that the intermediate appellate courts may issue writs of mandamus against specified

judges in our district and “all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.”

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b); see In re State ex rel. Best, 616 S.W.3d 594, 599 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (orig. proceeding). We have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against individuals or entities other than those specified in the government code unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b); see e.g., In re Bledsoe, 532 S.W.3d 826, 827 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, orig. proceeding); In re Resendez, 501 S.W.3d 680, 681 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that it should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We lack general mandamus jurisdiction over the district attorney, and relator has not shown that the issuance of a writ against the district attorney is necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b); In re Bledsoe, 532 S.W.3d at 827; In re Resendez, 501 S.W.3d at 681; In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d at 182. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

JENNY CRON Justice Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the 3rd day of February, 2025.