In Re Reginald Callis v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00334-CR

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG


                                  IN RE REGINALD CALLIS


                      ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS


                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

        By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Reginald Callis asserts that the

trial court lacked the ability to convict him in the absence of a plea and that mandamus

may issue on a void judgment. Relator’s complaints arise from trial court cause number

08-3-7806 in the 24th District Court of Jackson County, Texas. Relator has previously

filed a direct appeal and other proceedings from this same trial court cause number. See,



        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).
e.g., Ex parte Callis, No. 13-22-00264-CR, 2022 WL 3971792, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg Sept. 1, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(collecting cases).

       In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish that

the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act that does not involve a discretionary or

judicial decision, and that there is no adequate remedy at law to address 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).

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 TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7 (delineating the required form and contents for an original

proceeding); 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.”).

       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 further 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 courts. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07; Padieu v. Ct. of Apps. of Tex., Fifth


                                              2
Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding); In re Briscoe, 230

S.W.3d 196, 197 (Tex. App.—Houston [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.

                                                            CLARISSA SILVA
                                                            Justice


Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the
28th day of April, 2026.




                                           3