Opinion
NUMBER 13-12-00717-CV
11-20-2012
IN RE EDUARDO A. TREVINO
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
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).
Relator, Eduardo A. Trevino, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on November 19, 2012, seeking to set aside a final judgment entered in the underlying cause of action which was rendered on August 22, 2012.
Relator has appealed this same final judgment in our appellate cause number 13-12-00708-CV, styled Eduardo A. Trevino v. Cheryl Lawson, Charles E. Monroe, Norris Jackson, Tamra McColluch, and Sandra Castenada, which is currently pending in this Court.
--------
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. 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. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the
20th day of November, 2012.