Court Opinion

ID: 3126046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 15:18:15.328347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:36.773481
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-10-00102-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE: LEOPOLDO LEAL

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Garza

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion (1)

 Relator, Leopoldo Leal, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the foregoing
causes on March 3, 2010.  We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
	It is the relator's burden to provide this Court with a sufficient petition and record to
establish his right to mandamus relief.  See generally Tex. R. App. P. 52.  Specifically, for
instance, the relator must file an appendix with the petition for writ of mandamus, and the
appendix must include, inter alia, a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or
any other document showing the matter complained of.  See id. 52.3(k).  The relator must
also file a record including 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 "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."  See id. 52.7(a).  Further, relator must file a
certification with the petition for the petition for writ of mandamus stating that every factual
statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or
record.  See id. 52.3(j).  Finally, the petition for writ of mandamus must contain a "clear and
concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and
to the appendix or record."  See id. 52.3(h).
	In the instant case, relator has failed to meet these requirements and has thus failed
to provide this Court with a petition and record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus
relief.  In fact, at the present time, the Court is unable to discern the nature of the relief
sought by relator.  Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.  See id.
52.8(a).	

								PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed
this 4th day of March, 2010.
 
 
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).