Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00677-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE BERYMON DANNY LAVELLE ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1 Relator Berymon Danny Lavelle filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to “reopen” his probation revocation hearing because, inter alia, relator alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and the underlying proceedings violated his constitutional rights. Relator contends that his conviction should be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. Relator has already 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). assailed the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision by direct appeal. See Berymon v. State, No. 13-21-00163-CR, 2022 WL 3268022, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 11, 2022, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 2 Granting mandamus relief “is a discretionary act that is informed by equitable principles.” In re Guerrero, 710 S.W.3d 798, 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025) (orig. proceeding). To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal case, the “relator must establish that no other adequate remedy at law is available to redress the alleged harm and that the act he seeks to compel is ministerial, rather than discretionary, in nature.” Id. at 803. An act is ministerial in nature when the relator shows that he “has a clear right to the relief sought—that is, when the facts and circumstances dictate but one rational decision under unequivocal, well-settled, and clearly controlling legal principles.” In re State ex rel. Ogg, 692 S.W.3d 481, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). 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 2 We note that, to the extent that relator’s petition for writ of mandamus could be construed as an original application for habeas corpus, we would lack jurisdiction to grant relief. As an intermediate appellate court, this Court does not have original habeas jurisdiction in criminal cases. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6; TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(d); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.05; In re Neal, 653 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2022, orig. proceeding); Ex parte Braswell, 630 S.W.3d 600, 601–02 (Tex. App.—Waco 2021, orig. proceeding). Further, to the extent that relator is seeking relief from a final felony conviction, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the only court with jurisdiction to grant post-conviction relief. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Ct. of Apps. for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just. v. Bovee, 632 S.W.3d 244, 251 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.); Ex parte Salim, 595 S.W.3d 844, 853 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2020, no pet.). 2 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 a record that are sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(l) (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 relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. See In re Guerrero, 710 S.W.3d at 804. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. CLARISSA SILVA Justice Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b). Delivered and filed on the 2nd day of October, 2026. 3