in Re Joseph McCrey Ray

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-22-00291-CR
IN RE JOSEPH MCCREY RAY
Original Proceeding
From the 77th and 87th District Courts
Limestone County, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original proceeding, Relator Joseph McCrey Ray seeks mandamus relief
against Respondents, the judges of the 77th and 87th District Courts, alleging that
Respondents “refus[e] to hear [his] testimony or indict [him] on [certain] charges” even
though he has been in jail for months. 1
“Mandamus will issue when there is a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary
act, a demand for performance, and a refusal.” O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837
1 Ray’s petition for writ of mandamus has several procedural deficiencies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. It also
lacks a proper proof of service. See id. R. 9.5, 52.2. Because of our disposition and to expedite it, we will
implement Rule 2 and suspend these rules in this proceeding only. See id. R. 2.
S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Ray bears the burden of providing this Court
with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See In re Douthit, No.
10-12-00121-CV, 2012 WL 1548113, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco May 2, 2012, orig. proceeding)
(mem. op.); In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig.
proceeding).
Here, Ray has not identified any specific motion, application, or request that he has
properly filed and adequately presented to Respondents and upon which Respondents
have then failed to rule. Ray’s petition for writ of mandamus is therefore insufficient to
establish his right to mandamus relief.
Ray’s petition for writ of mandamus is accordingly denied.
MATT JOHNSON
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Petition denied
Opinion delivered and filed September 21, 2022
Do not publish
[OT06]
In re Ray Page 2