In Re: Daniel Kearns v. the State of Texas

DENIED and Opinion Filed November 21, 2024

S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-01373-CV

IN RE DANIEL KEARNS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 160th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-24-06557

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Smith
Before the Court are relator’s November 20, 2024 petition for writ of

mandamus and emergency motion for temporary relief. In his petition, relator

challenges as void various trial-court actions, arguing that all trial-court proceedings

have been automatically stayed pursuant to section 17.505 of the Texas Business and

Commerce Code. In his emergency motion, relator asks us to stay all trial-court

proceedings pending our action on the petition.

Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure and thus does not meet the requirements for consideration of mandamus
relief. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g), 52.3(h), 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a); see also

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(h).

Additionally and alternatively, and even if relator’s record contained properly

certified or sworn documents as required by the rules, entitlement to mandamus

relief requires a relator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and

that the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,

148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing relator’s

petition and the record before us, we conclude that relator has failed to demonstrate

entitlement to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, for each of the above independent and alternative reasons, we

deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We also deny

relator’s emergency motion for temporary relief as moot.

/Craig Smith/
CRAIG SMITH
241373F.P05 JUSTICE

–2–