In Re Richard Jones, Relator v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00104-CV

IN RE RICHARD JONES, RELATOR

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

March 24, 2025
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Before the Court is the petition of Richard M. Jones, Relator, for writ of mandamus.

Relator asserts that the trial court has unlawfully ignored several motions he has filed in

the underlying proceeding.

“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted only when the relator shows that

the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists.” In re

H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per

curiam). Rule 52.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate procedure sets forth the required form

and contents of a petition for a writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. It is Relator’s

burden to provide this Court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus
relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d

708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). Petitions must include, among

other things, a proper appendix or record that includes a certified or sworn copy of the

document showing the matter complained of. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Specifically,

Relator’s petition does not include a certified or sworn copy of any of the motions about

which he contends that the trial court has ignored. Further, the petition does not include

other contents required by Rule 52.3, such as “a clear and concise argument for the

contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.”

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h).

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is unsupported by a proper record and lacks

substantive legal analysis. Relator has not established his entitlement to mandamus

relief. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837. Accordingly, the petition is denied.

Per Curiam

2