Court Opinion

ID: 2926979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 22:43:37.888681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:30.336973
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-09-00268-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
______________________________________________________________

                IN RE BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE
____________________________________________________________

                On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
______________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

           Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela
                     Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       Relator, Barry Dwayne Minnfee, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the

above cause on May 14, 2009, asking this Court to direct the “trial court to respond to

Intentional Tort filed April 20, 2009 with Clerk Patsy Perez District Court.”

       We deny the petition for writ of mandamus for the reasons stated herein. First, the

petition for writ of mandamus fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

See generally TEX . R. APP. P. 52.3. Specifically, for instance, the petition lacks an

appendix and a record, fails to contain a “clear and concise argument for the contentions
made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record,” and is largely

illegible. See id. 52.3(h). Second, relator has not demonstrated that the trial court

expressly refused to rule on relator’s “Intentional Tort” or that an unreasonable amount of

time has passed since that document was filed. See In re Dimas, 88 S.W.3d 349, 351

(Tex. App.–San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex.

App.–Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex.

App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); accord O'Connor v. First Ct. of Appeals,

837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

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

is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

                                                  PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered
and filed this the 18th day of May, 2009.

                                              2