1 ... This proce eding arises out of Ca use Nos. 95-0059-CR and 00-0215- CR-A , sty led State of Texas v. Patrick

Jame s Holzer, Jr. , filed in the 25th J udicial District Court, Guada lupe County , Texas , the Honora ble Dwig ht E. Peschel presiding
. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No. 04-08-00879- CV IN RE Pa tr ic k Jam e s HOLZ ER , J r. Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 Opinion by : Kar en Ang elini Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini , J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons , J ustice Steven C. Hilbig , J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J anuar y 14, 2009 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On Dec ember

3 , 2008, rela

tor Patrick James Holzer, J r., an inmate confine d in the Texas De pa rtme nt o f C ri min a l Just ic e I ns tit uti on a l D ivi sio n, fi le d a

pe tit ion fo r a wr it o f m and a mus in t his court. In his petition, Holz er c omplains of a trial c ourt order requiringthe withdraw al of money from his inmate trust acc ount pursuant to section 501.014(e ) of the Texas Government Code. Sec tion 50 1. 01 4( e ) r e qu ir e s th e De pa rtme nt “ [o]n n oti fi c a tio n b y a c ourt ” to w ith dr aw f

ro m an inmate ’s tr

us t
acc ount any

amount the inmate is order ed to pay under spe cified court order s, including or ders f or f i n e s , c o u rt c o s t s , andfe e s. T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 5 01 .0 14 (e ) ( Ve rn on 20 04 ). Ho lze r a lso04
- 08
- 00 87 9- CV

2 ... Holzer did not file an af fidavit of indig ence with the cler k of this court with or bef ore the filing of his mandamus petition. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 20.1(c) (2).

- 2- complains of the tria l court’s failure to r ule on his motion for reimburseme nt of g arnished f unds and
o t h er m o t i o n s h e cl ai m s t o h av e f i l edi nt h e u n d er l yi n g p ro ce ed i n g. No mandamus re cord ha s been filed. 2 Ge ne ra lly , ma

nd a mus re lie f i s g ra

nte d o nly wh e n th e re lator

sh ow s th e tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s dis c re tio n a

nd he ha s n o a de qu a te re me dy by a pp e a l. In re Prude ntial Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W .3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). Ther e is disag ree men t am o n g the cour ts of appea ls over whe ther a section 501.014(e) order

is appea lable. Re e d v . S

tate , N o . 0 4
- 0 7
- 0 0 0 0 4
- CV , 2 0 0 8 WL 2 7 1 4 4 6 3 , a t * 3 ( T e x. App.—San Antoni o J uly 9, 2008, no pet.). This court ha s held that a sec tion 501.014(e) or der ma y be a f inal, appea lable orde r. Id . T he Te xas S up re me Cou rt may so on resol ve the d isa g re e me nt, having g rante d revie w in a ca se i n which another court of appeals held that a 501.014(e) order is not an appe alable or der. Se e Ha rre ll v . S tate , N o s . 0 7
- 0 6
- 0 4 6 9
- CR & 0 7
- 0 6- 0 4 7 0
- CR , 2 0 0 7 WL 2301350 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug ust 13, 2007, pet. g rante d). Her e, as the party

seekingmandamus re lief, Holzer had the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish his rig ht to mandamus relief
. See W alker v . Pack

er , 827 S.W .2d 83 3, 83 7 ( Te x. 19 92 ); In re Al e rt 2 4 S e c ur ity , L.L. C. , No. 04-08-00148- CV, 2008 WL 1733310, at *1 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa

n A nto nio Ap ri l 16 , 2 00 8, or ig . p ro c e e din g ); T EX . R. A PP . P. 52 .7 (a ). Te xas R ule of Ap pe llate Pr oc e dure 52 .7 , w hic h g ov e rn s th e fi lin g of the reco rd in mandamus pr oc e e din g s, expressly provides: “Relator mu st file with the petition: (1) a c ertified or sworn c opy of eve ry document that is m at er ial to the relator’s cla im for re lief and that was filed in any underlying04
- 08
- 00 87 9- CV

- 3- p ro ce ed i ng ; and (2) a

proper ly authenticated transc ript of any rele vant testimony

from any underlying pr ocee ding, inc luding a ny exhibi ts offer ed in evidenc e, or a statement that no testimony
was a dduced in c onnection with the matter complained.” T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.7(a) (empha sis added). I n his mandamus petition, Holz er r efe rs to an orde r re quiring the wit hdraw al of money from his inmate trust acc ount. Holzer also ref ers to several moti ons he allege dly filed i n the under ly ing proce eding , including a

motion for reimburse ment of g arnished funds. Holzer has f ailed to provide this court with copies of the orde r and motions cited in his mandamus petition. Additionally , there
may be oth e r do c ume nts no t re fe rr e d to H olze r’ s p e tit ion wh ic h a re a lso mate ri a l to Ho lze r’ s c la im for manda

mus relief. B eca

use Holz er has not provided thi s court with a r ecor d upon which he c an establish his right to mandamus relief, his pe tition for a writ of mandamus is denied. See W alker , 82 7 S. W.2 d at 83 7; Alert 24 , 2008 WL 1733310, at *1.
Kar en Ang elini, J ustice