Court Opinion

ID: 2926980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 22:43:39.069738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:06.989310
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.