NUMBER 13-14-00477-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ED JAYCOX

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relator, Ed Jaycox, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus

seeking to set aside the trial court’s order of June 16, 2014 dismissing relator’s lawsuit 

against his appointed counsel as frivolous under Chapters 13 and 14 of the Texas Civil 

 

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.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ch. 13, 14 (West, 

Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.).

2

To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must 

show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by 

appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus 

relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) 

(orig. proceeding); see Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show 

himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements, 

the relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent 

evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise 

argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the 

appendix or record.” See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that 

relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus 

relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) 

(specifying the required contents for the record).

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

is of the opinion that relator has not shown either that he lacks an adequate remedy by 

appeal, or, based on the paucity of documents provided, that the trial court abused its 

 

2 Relator has an appeal currently pending in this Court in our cause number 13-13-00639. Relator 

has also had several other matters filed with this Court which have been previously resolved. See, e.g., 

Jaycox v. State, No. 13-13-00214-CR, 2014 WL 3796412, at *1 (Tex. App—Corpus Christi July 31, 2014, 

no pet.) (mem. op.); In re Jaycox, No. 13-14-00399-CR, 2014 WL 3538895, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 

July 16, 2014, orig. proceeding) (per curiam mem. op.); In re Jaycox, No. 13-14-00398-CR, 2014 WL 

3538890, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 15, 2014, orig. proceeding) (per curiam mem. op.).
3

discretion in dismissing the case. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus filed in 

this cause is DENIED. See id. R. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

25th day of August, 2014.