Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00711-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE DANNY L. BERYMON ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Cron and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron1 Relator Danny L. Berymon filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the above- referenced cause number. 2 Although relator’s complaints are unclear, it appears that he 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). 2 Relator also filed a motion for leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus. We dismiss this motion as moot because leave is not required to file an original proceeding in an intermediate appellate court. See id. R. 52; In re Fields, 619 S.W.3d 394, 394 (Tex. App.—Waco 2021, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re McGee, 213 S.W.3d 405, 406 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see also In re Toledo, Nos. 13-24-00473-CR, 13-24-00474-CR, & 13-24-00475-CV, 2024 WL 4379819, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Oct. 3, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not seeks to compel the trial court to: (1) issue rulings on pending motions, and (2) direct the district clerk, the district attorney, and relator’s counsel to provide and file certain matters regarding a potential proceeding under Article 32.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 32.01 (governing the situation when a defendant is in custody and no indictment has been presented in the required time). Relator has already 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). 3 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 designated for publication). 3 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 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 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. 3 See In re Guerrero, 710 S.W.3d at 804. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. JENNY CRON Justice Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b). Delivered and filed on the 9th day of October, 2026. 4