In Re: Jose Luis Palomo v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

DENIED and Opinion Filed December 11, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-01245-CV
IN RE JOSE LUIS PALOMO, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 302nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-01491
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel
Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
Before the Court are relator’s December 8, 2023 petition for writ of
mandamus and motion for emergency relief pending a ruling on relator’s petition for
writ of mandamus. Relator challenges an associate judge’s November 20, 2023 order
denying relator’s 50 U.S.C.A. § 3932 stay reapplication and purported setting a
hearing on temporary orders to take place on December 12, 2023.
Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court
clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In
re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). Relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a record sufficient
to show he is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992)
(orig. proceeding). A relator must file with his petition (1) “a certified or sworn copy
of every document that is material to the relator’s 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
into evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the
matter complained.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). The record reflects that on
September 18, 2023, relator filed a stay reapplication with exhibits and that on
November 8, 2023, real party in interest filed an objection to relator’s stay
reapplication. Relator includes in his record a copy of only his November 16, 2023
amended reapplication. The record further reflects that the trial court held a hearing
on relator’s stay reapplication on November 20, 2023, but relator provided neither a
transcript of any testimony adduced at that hearing nor the statement required by
rule 52.7(a)(2). Accordingly, we conclude relator failed to meet his burden to
provide a record sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.
Even if we were to consider only the petition and record before us, we would
conclude that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
–2–
We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny relator’s
emergency motion as moot.
231245f.p05
/Bill Pedersen, III//
BILL PEDERSEN, III
JUSTICE
–3–