Opinion
12-24-00348-CR 12-24-00349-CR
12-20-2024
IN RE: COURTNEY WARREN, RELATOR
DO NOT PUBLISH
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Courtney B. Warren, an attorney acting pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus and alternative petition for writ of mandamus to challenge orders of contempt and an order to show cause. On December 12, 2024, the Clerk of this Court informed Relator that her petition fails to comply with appellate Rules 52.3(k) and 52.7. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (form and contents of petition); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7 (record). The notice warned that the petition would be referred to this Court for dismissal unless Relator provided an amended petition and the record on or before December 16. On December 16, Relator filed an appendix but failed to file a record of testimony or a notice that no testimony was taken. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(2) (relator must file "a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained"). That same day, the Clerk of this Court notified Relator that the petition still fails to comply with Rule 52.7. This Court received no further response from Relator, any motion for extension to comply with Rule 52.7, or any record or statement regarding the record.
Respondents are the Honorable Taylor B. Heaton, Judge of the 475th District Court in Smith County, Texas, and the Honorable Chris Martin, Judge of the 294th District Court in Van Zandt County, Texas. According to Relator's petition, Judge Martin was assigned to preside over the contempt proceedings. The State of Texas and Vincente Zavaleta are the Real Parties in Interest.
Generally, a party seeking extraordinary relief must bring forward all that is necessary to establish that claim for relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52. The petition must contain certain items, including an appendix. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7 requires the relator to file a record as part of her petition in an original proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7. Specifically, a relator must file (1) a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to his 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 in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained." TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a).
It is a relator's burden to provide this Court with a record sufficient to establish the right to extraordinary relief. See In re Mack, No. 12-19-00238-CV, 2019 WL 3024757, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler July 10, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem op.). In this case, Relator did not provide a record or statement in accordance with Rule 52.7. In particular, Relator's petition, the appendix, and the Smith County online records reflect that a contempt hearing was held on December 6. Absent a complete record, we cannot determine whether Relator is entitled to relief. See id. Because Relator's petition fails to comply with the appellate rules, nothing is presented for this Court to review. Therefore, we deny the petition for habeas corpus and alternative, petition for writ of mandamus. All pending motions are overruled as moot.
We note that this is the third original proceeding filed by Relator to challenge contempt orders, among other matters. The first two petitions were likewise dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 52.7. The rules of appellate procedure allow an appellate court to impose just sanctions on a party or an attorney who is not acting in good faith as indicated by (1) filing a petition that is clearly groundless; (2) bringing the petition solely for delay of an underlying proceeding, (3) grossly misstating or omitting an obviously important and material fact in the petition or response; or (4) filing an appendix or record that is clearly misleading because of the omission of obviously important and material evidence or documents. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.11. We decline to impose sanctions at this time. But we note that further filings of this nature could be considered an abuse of the judicial process for which Relator could be sanctioned. See In re Kennedy, Nos. 12-17-00404-CV-12-17-00406-CV, 2018 WL 636071, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler Jan. 31, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Schmotzer, No. 10-15-00433-CR, 2015 WL 9462178, at *1 (Tex. App.-Waco Dec. 23, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re Altschul, 146 S.W.3d 754, 755 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2004, orig. proceeding).
JUDGMENT
Original Proceeding
ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for habeas corpus and alternative, petition for writ of mandamus filed by Courtney Warren; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-24-00348-CR and counsel to the defendant in trial court cause number 475-1501-23, pending on the docket of the 475th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. Said petition having been filed herein on December 12, 2024, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition be, and the same is, hereby denied.
JUDGMENT
Original Proceeding
ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for habeas corpus and alternative, petition for writ of mandamus filed by Courtney Warren; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-24-00349-CR and counsel to the defendant in trial court cause number 475-0487-24, pending on the docket of the 475th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. Said petition having been filed herein on December 12, 2024, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition be, and the same is, hereby denied.