In Re Bradrick Gerlmaine Tanner v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00412-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE BRADRICK GERLMAINE TANNER

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

Relator Bradrick Gerlmaine Tanner has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus

raising various complaints regarding the district clerk’s failure to act regarding relator’s

motion for nunc pro tunc judgment. 2

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’s petition for writ of mandamus arises from trial court cause number 2101-10789 in the

24th District Court of Jackson County, Texas. Relator has already pursued a direct appeal from that cause
number. See Tanner v. State, No. 13-22-00099-CR, 2024 WL 193722, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–
Edinburg Jan. 18, 2024), rev’d, 707 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024). Tanner has previously sought relief
regarding the same or similar issues as those that are presented in this original proceeding, although he
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 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.”). This burden

includes providing a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. In re

Schreck, 642 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2022, orig. proceeding); In re Pena,

619 S.W.3d at 839; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (delineating the required form

and content for a petition in an original proceeding); id. R. 52.7(a) (providing that the

relator “must file” a record including specific matters).

identified himself in that original proceeding as “Braderick” Gerlmaine Tanner. See In re Tanner, No. 13-
25-00382-CR, 2025 WL 2180531, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 31, 2025, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

2
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. Our mandamus

jurisdiction does not extend to the district clerk unless it is necessary to enforce our

jurisdiction, and this case presents no such circumstances. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§ 22.221(a), (b); In re Shugart, 528 S.W.3d 794, 796 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, orig.

proceeding); In re Potts, 357 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011,

orig. proceeding); In re Revels, 420 S.W.3d 42, 43 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, orig.

proceeding). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of

jurisdiction.

CLARISSA SILVA
Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the
18th day of August, 2025.

3