In Re Christy Lynne Powell v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
• Decided: March 24, 2026
• Docket: 06-26-00033-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00033-CV

IN RE CHRISTY LYNNE POWELL

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION

Christy Lynne Powell has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking relief from trial

court orders imposing sanctions against her. Because we find that Powell has failed to comply

with Rule 52.7 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we deny her petition for a writ of

mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7.

“Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of

discretion . . . , and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law.” In re Blakeney, 254

S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (citing Cantu v. Longoria, 878

S.W.2d 131 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)). “It is the relator’s burden to provide this Court with a

sufficient record to establish his or her right to mandamus relief.” Id. (citing Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 839–40). Accordingly, a relator must file “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.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1).

Although Powell’s appendix attaches the trial court’s sanctions orders, it omits the real

party in interest’s motions for sanctions. Instead, Powell only attaches her pro se responses to

the motions. Thus, she has not provided us “with a record of all material pleadings and evidence

that were considered by the trial court when it ruled.” In re John Gannon, Inc., No. 14-21-

00005-CV, 2021 WL 1307248, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 8, 2021, orig.

proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (quoting In re Fields, No. 14-17-00640-CV, 2017 WL

2 3495396, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 15, 2017, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)

(mem. op.)).

Because Powell did not comply with Rule 52.7(a)(1), we deny her petition for a writ of

mandamus. See In re Sampson, No. 06-25-00141-CR, 2025 WL 2811337, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana Oct. 3, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Lynch, No. 06-25-00029-CV, 2025

WL 1131395, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 17, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

(denying petition for a writ of mandamus because relator’s appendix failed to “include the

motion upon which the challenged order is based”); In re John Gannon, Inc., 2021 WL 1307248,

at *1 (“Our court has repeatedly denied mandamus relief when the record is incomplete.”).1

Accordingly, we deny Powell’s petition.

Charles van Cleef Justice

Date Submitted: March 23, 2026 Date Decided: March 24, 2026

1 Powell also filed an emergency motion to stay enforcement of the trial court’s sanctions orders. Because we have denied her petition for a writ of mandamus, we deny Powell’s emergency motion as moot. 3