In Re Andrew Silva v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)
• Decided: April 21, 2026
• Docket: 08-26-00151-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ———————————— No. 08-26-00151-CV ———————————— In re Andrew Silva, Relator

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS

M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N Relator Andrew Silva filed this mandamus action and emergency motion for temporary

relief against Respondent County Court at Law No. 3, El Paso County, Texas. Silva’s substantive

argument reads in its entirety as follows:

A writ of possession has issued from County Court at Law No. 3, and the El Paso County Constable has posted notice requiring [Silva] to vacate his homestead on or before April 22, 2026. Absent immediate intervention by this Court, [Silva] will be forcibly removed from his residence, resulting in irreparable harm and rendering the relief sought in the mandamus proceeding moot.

The petition demonstrates that the trial court exercised jurisdiction over an eviction action in which the right to possession depends upon the resolution of a pending and bona fide dispute over title. Additionally, the trial court improperly relied upon a Rule 736 order as having preclusive effect, contrary to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736.9. (emphasis in original).

“Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy requiring the relator to show that (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal.” In re

Kappmeyer, 668 S.W.3d 651, 654 (Tex. 2023) (orig. proceeding).

In addition, a petition for writ of mandamus must, “under appropriate headings and in the

order here indicated,” include the following: (1) identity of parties and counsel; (2) table of

contents; (3) index of authorities; (4) statement of the case; (5) statement of jurisdiction; (6) issues

presented; (7) statement of facts; (8) argument; (9) prayer; (10) certification that the person filing

the petition “has reviewed [it] and concluded that every factual statement in [it] is supported by

competent evidence included in the appendix or record”; and (11) appendix. Tex. R. App. P. 52.3.

The argument must be “clear and concise,” support the contentions made, and include “appropriate

citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” Id. 52.3(i). The petition must be

accompanied by a record that includes “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material

to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding,” and “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).

Silva’s petition is in the form of a two-page letter to the Clerk of this Court unaccompanied

by an appendix or record, much less appropriate citations to authorities and the appendix or record.

It contains no headings and lacks any content corresponding to more than half of the required

headings. Lack of compliance with the requirements of Rules 52.3 and 52.7(a) by itself warrants

denial of the petition. See, e.g., In re Rowe, No. 05-16-00031-CV, 2016 WL 228840, at *1, n.2

(Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 19, 2016, orig. proceeding) (“[D]eficiencies [in the certification required

by Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j) and Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)] alone constitute sufficient reason to deny

mandamus relief[.]”); In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig.

2 proceeding) (“This court cannot make a sound decision based on an incomplete picture. But that

is precisely what relator is asking us to do by her failure to provide a sufficient mandamus record.

Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable procedural

rules.”).

Moreover, here, lack of compliance with Rules 52.3 and 52.7(a) prevents us from

conducting a meaningful review of Silva’s complaint, which is stated in conclusory form only and

does not address why Silva has no adequate remedy on appeal.

After reviewing the mandamus petition, we conclude that Silva has not established that he

is entitled to relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

We further deny Silva’s emergency motion for temporary relief as moot.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

April 21, 2026

Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.