In Re Alfonso Atkinson v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00036-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE ALFONSO ATKINSON

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Peña and West
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina1

Relator Alfonso Atkinson has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus raising

various complaints about his conviction for manslaughter, his appeal, and various post-

conviction proceedings. See Atkinson v. State, 517 S.W.3d 902, 903 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi–Edinburg 2017, no pet.).

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 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.”); see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7.

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.

We note that the habeas corpus procedure set out in Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of

Criminal Procedure is the exclusive remedy for felony post-conviction relief in state court.

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07; Padieu v. Court of Apps. of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392

S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding); Board. of Pardons & Paroles

ex rel. Keene v. Court of Apps. for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483–84 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1995) (orig. proceeding); In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 197 (Tex. App.–Houston

2
[14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); see also Calton v. Schiller, 498 S.W.3d 247, 252

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. denied). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus.

JAIME TIJERINA
Chief Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the
20th day of January, 2026.

3