In Re Armando Ramos v. the State of Texas

NUMBERS 13-26-00436-CR, 13-26-00437-CR,
13-26-00439-CR, 13-26-00440-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE ARMANDO RAMOS

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Peña, West, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1

Relator Armando Ramos filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus asserting that

the trial court erred by failing to: (1) set aside void judgments, and (2) file findings of fact

and conclusions of law. Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus arises from trial court

cause numbers 89-CR-00679-D, 89-CR-00680-D, 89-CR-00681-D, and 89-CR-00682-D

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 the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas, and is docketed respectively in our

appellate cause numbers 13-26-00436-CR, 13-26-00437-CR, 13-26-00439-CR, and 13-

26-00440-CR. This Court affirmed relator’s convictions in these trial court cause numbers

in 1991. See Ramos v. State, 819 S.W.2d 939, 940 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg

1991, pet. ref’d). Relator has previously attempted to raise the same claims that are at

issue in this original proceeding by direct appeal. See Ramos v. State, Nos. 13-26-00136-

CR–13-26-00143-CR, 2026 WL 846376, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Mar.

26, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal for

want of jurisdiction).

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). 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.

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

the limited record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not

met his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus in

each of these causes.

JON WEST
Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the
8th day of June, 2026.

3