Court Opinion

ID: 9380471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-19 08:11:09.373389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:25.099550
License: Public Domain

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied; Majority Memorandum Opinion filed
March 3, 2023; and Dissenting Opinion filed March 14, 2023.

                                       In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                 NO. 14-23-00117-CV

      IN RE MEHRAN RAHBAR, M.D. AND FARINAZ ARBAB M.D.,
                 HUSBAND AND WIFE, Relators

                          ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
                            WRIT OF MANDAMUS
                               151st District Court
                              Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. 2022-05545

                            DISSENTING OPINION

      Here we go again deciding original proceedings on the merits without
complying with the rules.

      Relators Mehran Rahbar, M.D. and Farinaz Arbab M.D. filed this pro se
petition for writ of mandamus. Rahbar complied with the mandatory Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 52.3(j) certification of the petition, but Arbab did not. See Tex.
R. App. P. 52.3(j). Rahbar provided a mandatory Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
52.7(a)(1) record containing his affidavit and sworn copies of every document he
swore were material to his claim for relief and that was filed in the underlying
proceeding in the trial court, but Arbab did not. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1).
Neither Rahbar nor Arbab provided the mandatory Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 52.7(a)(2) record containing 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 Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(2).

        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 and an opportuniy to cure 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 the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure as described above.1 See 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).

        There is no question that the procedure in original proceedings is not simple.
This court is doing what it can to help, and the court’s website now has a checklist

        1
          Although this court is not consistent in its use of “deny” — a disposition on the merits — and
“dismiss” — a nonmerits procedural disposition, the majority does deny the petition in this original
proceeding based on the merits. Compare Deny, Merriam-Webster.com, www.meriam-
webster.com/dictionary/deny (last visited Mar. 8, 2023) (“to give a negative answer to”) with Dismiss,
Merriam-Webster.com, www.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/dismiss (last visited Mar. 8, 2023) (“to put
out of judicial consideration; refuse to hear or hear further in court”); see also Dismiss, Black’s Law
Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“To send (something) away; specif., to terminate (an action or claim) without
further hearing.”). But the majority reaches the merits on a defective record, something the court does not
do in appeals and should not do in original proceedings.
                                                    2
for original proceedings to assist parties in complying with the applicable statutes
and rules. There is also no question that the supreme court and court of criminal
appeals should amend the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to include procedures
within Rule 52 that mirror what the rules require in civil appeals, i.e., Rule 42.3. A
simple amendment to Rule 52 would be to add the following: “(e) Dismissal. On any
party’s motion — or on its own initiative after giving ten days’ notice to all parties
— the court may dismiss the petition if the petition is subject to dismissal for the
grounds enumerated in Rule 42.3.”

      But at present we have no specific dismissal rule and must rely on our
knowledge of the law and common sense that proceedings must be decided on a
competent record. Because that is absent, I dissent from the court’s failure to give
notice of the deficiencies and an oportunity to cure, and I express no opinion on the
merits because of the lack of a proper record on which to base a ruling.

                                       /s/        Charles A. Spain
                                                 Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain (Spain, J.,
dissenting).

                                             3