in Re: Ashley Lambert Croel ( 2014 )

DENY; and Opinion Filed June 25, 2014.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00684-CV
IN RE ASHLEY LAMBERT CROEL, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 429th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 429-51433-2010
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices O'Neill, Lang, and Brown
Opinion by Justice O'Neill
Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial
court to vacate its order of dismissal, vacate an order granting attorney’s fees to an ad litem
appointed in the case, vacate an order of income withholding related to the order granting the ad
litem’s attorney’s fees, and set hearings on all of relator’s live pleadings and that the Court
further enjoin the trial court from dismissing relator’s case without first considering her “timely
challenges.” The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we do not recount them here.
Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure have specific requirements for the form and contents of a
petition for writ of mandamus. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. As under rule 38.1, applicable to appellate
briefs in general, applicants for extraordinary relief must state concisely the complaint they may
have, provide understandable, succinct, and clear argument for why their complaint has merit in
fact and in law, and cite and apply law that is applicable to the complaint being made along with
record references that are appropriate. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(f), (g), (h), (i); see also Bolling v.
Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.)
(applying TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (h), and (i)). To comply with the rules of appellate procedure,
the brief must “guide us through the appellant's argument with clear and understandable
statements of the contentions being made.” Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896. If the Court must
speculate or guess about what contentions are being made, then the brief fails. Id. This Court is
not responsible for identifying possible trial court error. See Canton–Carter v. Baylor College of
Medicine, 271 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). This Court is
also not responsible for searching the record for facts that may be favorable to a party's position.
See Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 283–84 (Tex. 1994).
Relator has failed to demonstrate why the orders from which she seeks relief constitute clear
abuses of discretion by the trial court. Because relator has failed to comply with the
requirements of rule 52.3, she has failed to show she is entitled to relief. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.
/Michael J. O'Neill/
MICHAEL J. O'NEILL
JUSTICE
140684F.P05
–2–