In Re MacArio Rincon v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00165-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE MACARIO RINCON

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Peña, and West
Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1

Macario Rincon has filed a pro se pleading entitled “Relator’s Plea for Reduction

of [Sentence]” in the above-referenced cause. Rincon generally alleges that he received

ineffective assistance of counsel, and he seeks to “reduce the sentence bestowed on

him.” Rincon does not have a pending appeal in this Court and he does not reference a

judgment or order that is subject to appeal. Accordingly, we liberally construe this pro se

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).
pleading as a petition for writ of mandamus. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2 (governing

the perfection of appeal in criminal cases), 52 (describing the requirements for filing

original proceedings); In re Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd. P’ship, 189 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex.

App.—Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (“The function of the writ of

mandamus is to compel action by those who by virtue of their official or quasi-official

positions are charged with a positive duty to act.”).

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). “The petition must contain a clear and concise argument for the

contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.”

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(i). Relator’s 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 generally TEX. R. APP. P.

2
52.3 (delineating the required form and contents of a petition in an original proceeding),

R. 52.7(a) (providing that the relator “must file” a record including specific matters).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the pleading at issue, and having

construed it as a petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that Rincon has not met

his burden to obtain relief. Rincon’s petition fails to meet the requirements of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure, and without argument, authority, or supporting

documentation, we cannot ascertain the merits of his request for relief. Accordingly, we

deny the petition for writ of mandamus and all relief sought in this cause number.

JON WEST
Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the
19th day of February, 2026.

3