Court Opinion

ID: 9364821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 08:09:18.5401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:40.583933
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-22-00438-CV
                               __________________

                              IN RE JAMES MUZZY

__________________________________________________________________

                           Original Proceeding
           435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 13-01-00183-CV
__________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In a mandamus petition, James Muzzy seeks to compel the trial court to vacate

unidentified orders relating to Muzzy’s petition for transfer to less restrictive

housing and supervision under Subchapter E of the Texas Health and Safety Code.

See generally Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.0834. 1 Muzzy’s mandamus

record lacks the petition Muzzy filed with the trial court, the State’s response to his

petition, a record of any hearings conducted by the trial court, and any orders signed

      1
        Muzzy is subject to an order of civil commitment as a sexually violent
predator. See In re Commitment of Muzzy, No. 09-13-00496-CV, 2014 WL 1778254,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont, May 1, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
                                        1
by the trial court. 2 Appellate courts do not decide cases in a vacuum. In a mandamus

proceeding, the relator must file with the petition (1) a certified or sworn copy of

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

the underlying proceeding and (2) file a properly authenticated transcript of any

relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding. Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a). Muzzy

failed to satisfy his burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record to

establish his right to mandamus relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837

(Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of

mandamus without prejudice to refiling. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                            PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 18, 2023
Opinion Delivered January 19, 2023

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

      2
        Muzzy failed to certify that he served a copy of the petition on the
Respondent and the Real Party in Interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We use Rule 2,
however, to look beyond these deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See Tex.
R. App. P. 2.
                                        2