Court Opinion

ID: 9556123
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 06:09:48.766341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:27.955909
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed August 10, 2023

                                        In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-23-00752-CV

                     IN RE KENNETH RAY HALL, Relator

           Original Proceeding from the 194th Judicial District Court
                             Dallas County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. F09-52101

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                           Opinion by Justice Breedlove

      In his July 28, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus, relator seeks relief from a

trial court’s purported failure to rule on his supplemental motion for nunc pro tunc

order. Relator makes various other complaints, but it is not clear whether he seeks

relief from this Court to address them.

      Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy.

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

proceeding). When the requested relief is to compel a trial court to rule on a motion,

relator must show (1) the trial court had a legal duty to rule on the motion, (2) relator
requested a ruling, and (3) the trial court failed or refused to do so within a reasonable

time. In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.). It is relator’s burden to provide a record sufficient to establish his right

to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig.

proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1).

      Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure in numerous respects. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1, 52.3(a)–(k), 52.7(a).

For instance, a petition seeking mandamus relief must include a certification stating

that the relator “has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement

in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or

record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). Relator failed to certify his petition.

      Additionally, Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires a relator to file an appendix with his

petition that contains “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any

other document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A).

Rule 52.7(a)(1) requires the relator to file with his petition “a certified or sworn copy

of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in

any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Relator failed to include

with his petition any documents material to his claim for relief.

      Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

230752f.p05                                  /Maricela Breedlove/
                                             MARICELA BREEDLOVE
                                             JUSTICE

                                           –2–