Court Opinion

ID: 9388963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-23 07:15:31.997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:24.096605
License: Public Domain

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Majority and
Dissenting Opinions filed April 18, 2023.

                                      In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                NO. 14-22-00776-CV

          IN RE DENA HALL AND DE’VON BANKETT, Relators

                          ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
                            WRIT OF MANDAMUS
                              400th District Court
                            Fort Bend County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. 16-DCV-236116

                     MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION

      Persisting in my view that our duty as judges is to reach a decision on the
merits based on a proper record and that due process and due course of law require
that this court give notice when the original-proceeding record does not comply with
the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I would give relators ten-days’ notice of
involuntary dismissal for failure to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
52.3 and 52.7. See Tex. R. App. Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1) (necessary contents of
petition); Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) (requiring (1) a certified or sworn copy of every
document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any
underlying proceeding and (2) a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant
testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in
evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter
complained); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 132.001 (authorizing unsworn
declarations); In re Kholaif, 624 S.W.3d 228, 231 (order), mand. dism’d, 615 S.W.3d
369 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020) (orig. proceeding).

       This court has not been consistent with its handling of original proceedings in
which the relators did not comply with Rule 52. Compare In re Hawkins,
No. 14-22-00474-CR, 2022 WL 3973867, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
Sept. 1, 2022, no pet.) with In re Hinton, No. 14-22-00543-CR, 2022 WL 16571199,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 1, 2022, no pet.) and In re Catt,
No. 14-22-00583-CV, 2022 WL 11551248, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
Oct. 20, 2022, no pet.) (Spain, J., concurring). Kholaif is this court’s controlling
precedent, but even if the court ignores that, the potential appearance of subjective
decision-making in the absence of an improper original-proceeding record is
unfortunate.1

       1
         A positive step forward is the checklist for original proceedings that has been posted on
the court’s website to assist parties filing an original proceeding.

                                                2
      I dissent from the court’s failure to provide notice and an opportunity to cure.
I express no opinion on the merits of the petition for a writ of mandamus.

                                       /s/       Charles A. Spain
                                                 Justice

Panel consists of Justices Spain, Poissant, and Wilson (Spain, J., dissenting).

                                             3