in Re Jaime Hernandez Muniz, Relator ( 2011 )

NO. 07-11-00322-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
AUGUST 24, 2011
IN RE JAIME HERNANDEZ MUNIZ, RELATOR
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Jamie Hernandez Muniz, a prison inmate appearing pro se, has filed a
motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus2 and a petition for writ of
mandamus. In his petition, relator complains that the trial court denied him due process
of law by signing orders directing withdrawal of funds from his trust account. For the
reasons that follow, we will deny relator’s petition.
Relator has not filed a record or appendix with his petition. In an original
mandamus proceeding, the petition must be accompanied by a certified or sworn copy
of every document that is material to a relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any
underlying proceeding. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1). Additionally, the petition states
1
John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by
assignment.
2
Motions for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus are no longer required.
Tex. R. App. P. 52.1 Notes and Comments.
facts not supported by evidence included in an appendix or record. A relator’s burden
on mandamus includes meeting the requirement that “[e]very statement of fact in the
petition [is] supported by citation to competent evidence included in the appendix or
record.” Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(g). In short, a relator must supply a record sufficient to
establish the right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.
1992). Relator has not done so and we are therefore unable to determine whether he is
entitled to mandamus relief.
Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied and his motion for
leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot. In denying relator’s
petition, we express no opinion on the merits of his complaint, or whether it is properly
reviewable by petition for writ of mandamus. See Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 321
(Tex. 2009) (holding appellate review of a trial court’s order denying an inmate’s motion
challenging a withdrawal order is by appeal).
James T. Campbell
Justice
2