In Re: Enya Hernandez Gonzalez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 21, 2023
• Docket: 05-23-01298-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed December 21, 2023

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-01298-CV

IN RE ENYA HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-02805-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III Before the Court are relator’s December 21, 2023 petition for writ of

mandamus and emergency motion to stay pending writ of mandamus.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy.

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). Relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a record sufficient

to show she is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992)

(orig. proceeding). Relator was required to file with her petition an appendix that contains “a

certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing

the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Relator was also required

to file with her petition (1) “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 (2) “a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony

from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered into evidence, or a

statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained.”

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). Because the parties in an original proceeding assemble their

own record, this Court strictly enforces the requirements of rule 52 to ensure the

integrity of the mandamus record. In re Vasquez, No. 05-15-00592-CV, 2015 WL

2375504, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 18, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Although relator separately filed an appendix with her petition, none of the

documents included in that appendix are certified or sworn copies. Moreover, the

petition reflects that a hearing was held on the motion at issue, but relator did not

provide a transcript of any testimony from that hearing or the alternative statement

required by rule 52.7(a)(2).

Accordingly, we conclude relator has failed to meet her burden to provide a

record sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief and deny the

petition.

–2– We also deny relator’s emergency motion as moot.

/Bill Pedersen, III// 231298f.p05 BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE

–3–