Opinion
14-24-00686-CR
11-14-2024
IN RE DARRELL WILLIAMS, Relator
Do Not Publish - Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 174th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1491754
Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain
MEMORANDUM MAJORITY OPINION
PER CURIAM
On September 17, 2024, relator Darrell Williams filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.
Relator's petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in numerous respects. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1, 52.3(j), (k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Among other defects, the petition is not certified. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j). Further, relator has not supported his petition by a record or appendix. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Additionally, relator did not include with his petition "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)(2). Thus, relator's petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See In re Guillaume, No. 05-24-00765-CV, 2024 WL 3548511, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas July 26, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus relief based on relator's failure to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure).
Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.
MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION
Charles A. Spain, Justice
The majority recognizes the procedural deficiencies in relator's petition, yet choses to deny relator notice and an opportunity to cure. Due process and due course of law seemingly do not exist for some parties in this court if there is no Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure to require that.
I believe that the federal and state constitutions extend to every litigant before this court and are not so anemic that the lack of procedural rules renders those constitutions impotent. I express no opinion on the merits of the petition for a writ of mandamus because there is no record on which such a review can be performed.
I dissent.