From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Stutsman

Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Sep 18, 2020
No. 06-20-00064-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 18, 2020)

Opinion

No. 06-20-00064-CV

09-18-2020

IN RE MISTY STUTSMAN


Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding, Misty Stutsman has filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting this Court to compel the trial court to vacate its order granting real party in interest Cameron J. Peoples's motion to sever. We conclude that Stutsman's petition is not authenticated as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. As a result, we deny Stutsman's request for relief.

Rule 52.3(j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, "The person filing the petition must certify that he or she has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record." TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). Counsel's certification attached to Stutsman's petition provides, "I hereby certify that all factual statements made by me in the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are true and correct." Because Stutsman has failed to comply with the requirement of Rule 52.3(j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure by certifying that the factual statements contained in the petition are supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record, the certification is defective. See In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding); see also In re Jimenez, No. 14-20-00387-CV, 2020 WL 3527550, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 30, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Williams, No. 05-20-00403-CV, 2020 WL 2510192, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 15, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Norman, No. 01-10-00915-CV, 2011 WL 286159, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 27, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Because we conclude that Stutsman's petition is not authenticated as required by Rule 52.3(j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice Date Submitted: September 17, 2020
Date Decided: September 18, 2020


Summaries of

In re Stutsman

Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Sep 18, 2020
No. 06-20-00064-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 18, 2020)
Case details for

In re Stutsman

Case Details

Full title:IN RE MISTY STUTSMAN

Court:Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

Date published: Sep 18, 2020

Citations

No. 06-20-00064-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 18, 2020)

Citing Cases

In re Porter

Because it fails to comply with the requirement of Rule 52.3(j), we conclude that Warfab's petition is not…

In re Gilead Scis.

"Because it fails to comply with the requirement of Rule 52.3(j), we conclude that Gilead's petition is not…