In re Michael Anthony Mayes

Summary

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals of Texas construed Michael Anthony Mayes’s pro se pleading as a petition for writ of mandamus concerning jail-time credit, a judgment nunc pro tunc, and an examining trial. The court denied relief in both appellate cause numbers because the petition did not satisfy the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and lacked sufficient argument, authority, and supporting documentation.

Holdings

1. When a criminal defendant has no pending appeal in the court, a pro se pleading seeking extraordinary relief may be liberally construed as a petition for writ of mandamus.
2. A relator seeking mandamus relief in a criminal case must establish both that the requested act is ministerial and not discretionary or judicial and that there is no adequate remedy at law.
3. The relator bears the burden to properly request and demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief, including by presenting the required argument, authorities, and a sufficient record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mayes's pro se pleading should be construed as a petition for writ of mandamus despite the absence of a pending appeal.
2. Whether Mayes established entitlement to mandamus relief by showing a ministerial act, the absence of an adequate remedy at law, and compliance with the procedural and record requirements for an original proceeding.

Disposition

writ_denied