in Re Arturo Gomez ( 2015 )

NUMBER 13-15-00212-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE ARTURO GOMEZ
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Arturo Gomez, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus on
May 4, 2015, seeking to compel the trial court to rule on and grant relator’s motion for the
return of property, including unspecified personal property, vehicles, and cash.
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must
show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
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).
1
proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus
relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003)
(orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must
show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”).
In addition to other requirements, relator must include a statement of facts
supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the appendix or record,” and
must also provide “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. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that relator must furnish an appendix or record
sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the
required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the
record).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain
mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36. Relator’s
petition for writ of mandamus fails to meet the foregoing requirements. See generally
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. For instance, relator has not provided an adequate appendix or
record insofar as the only document attached to the petition for writ of mandamus is a
copy of relator’s “Motion for Return of Property” which is not file-stamped. Moreover,
while our authority encompasses the ability to direct a trial court to issue a ruling on a
motion, it does not include the power to reach the merits of the motion or direct the trial
court regarding how to rule on it. In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—
2
Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex.
App.—El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding); In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 684 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding); O'Donniley v. Golden, 860 S.W.2d 267, 269 (Tex.
App.—Tyler 1993, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is
DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
5th day of May, 2015.
3