Court Opinion

ID: 9910647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-16 11:10:58.267578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:39.872948
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00295-CR
                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
                                        TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:                                                §

BILLY RAY PEGUES,                                     §       ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR                                               §

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                         PER CURIAM
        Billy Ray Pegues, acting pro se, filed this original proceeding to complain of his bond
amount. 1
        On November 20, 2023, the Clerk of this Court informed Relator that his petition fails to
comply with appellate Rules 52.3(a)-(c), (e)-(k)(1)(C), and 52.7. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.3 (contents of petition); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7 (record). The notice warned that the petition
would be referred to this Court for dismissal unless Relator provided an amended petition and
the record on or before December 1. Relator did not file an amended petition and the record, nor
did he otherwise respond to this Court’s notice.
        Generally, a party seeking mandamus relief must bring forward all that is necessary to
establish his claim for mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 52.7 requires the relator to file a record as part of his petition in an original
proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7. Specifically, a relator must file (1) a certified or sworn copy
of every document that is material to his 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. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). It is

        1
          Respondent is the Honorable Robert K. Inselmann, Jr., Judge of the 217th District Court in Angelina
County, Texas. The State of Texas is the Real Party in Interest.
a relator’s burden to provide this court with a record sufficient to establish the right to
extraordinary relief. See In re Daisy, No. 12-13-00266-CR, 2014 WL 5577068, at *2 (Tex.
App.–Tyler Aug. 29, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
         In this case, Relator did not provide a record in accordance with Rule 52.7. Absent a
record, we cannot determine whether Relator is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re
McCreary, No. 12-15-00067-CR, 2015 WL 1395783 (Tex. App.–Tyler Mar. 25, 2015, orig.
proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, we deny
Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

Opinion delivered December 14, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          2
                                  COURT OF APPEALS
     TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                          JUDGMENT

                                         DECEMBER 14, 2023

                                        NO. 12-23-00295-CR

                                       BILLY RAY PEGUES,
                                             Relator
                                               V.

                       HON. JUDGE ROBERT K. INSELMANN JR.,
                                    Respondent

                                       ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

               ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Billy
Ray Pegues; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-23-00295-CR and the defendant in
trial court cause number 2019-0706, pending on the docket of the 217th Judicial District Court of
Angelina County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on
November 20, 2023, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this
Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED
that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby denied.

                   By per curiam opinion.
                   Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

                                                     3