eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2015-10

in Re Leopoldo Leal ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                                  NUMBER 13-15-00483-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 Garza, Benavides, and Longoria
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1
Relator, Leopoldo Leal, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in
the above cause on October 7, 2015. Although the petition for writ of mandamus is
unclear, it appears that relator is seeking to compel enforcement of a judgment and liens.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Ordinarily, mandamus relief lies when the trial court has abused its discretion and
a party has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co.,
    148 S.W.3d 124
    ,
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).
135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer,
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 839-40 (Tex.
1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so
arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it
clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law. See In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P.,
    164 S.W.3d 379
    , 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding). In determining whether appeal is
an adequate remedy, we consider whether the benefits outweigh the detriments of
mandamus review. In re BP Prods. N. Am., Inc.,
    244 S.W.3d 840
    , 845 (Tex. 2008) (orig.
proceeding). It is the relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to
establish the right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer,
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 839–40 (Tex.
1992); In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp.,
    187 S.W.3d 197
    , 198–99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006,
orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3.
In the instant case, the petition for writ of mandamus fails to meet the requirements
of the appellate rules insofar as it fails to contain a “clear and concise argument for the
contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.”
See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52. 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
Delivered and filed the
8th day of October, 2015.
2