In Re Henry B. Berrocal v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-26-00486-CV

IN RE Henry B. BERROCAL

Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice

Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 15, 2026 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED Relator, Henry B. Berrocal, filed an accelerated appeal designated Cause No. 04-26-

00473-CV on June 15, 2026. This court issued an order to show cause why it should not be dismissed on June 17, 2026. Berrocal filed a response to the show cause order and alternatively requested that his filing be treated as a petition for writ of mandamus. On June 23, 2026, we construed the response as a petition for writ of mandamus and ordered Berrocal to file a petition for writ of mandamus that complied with Rule 52, et seq of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure no later than July 6, 2026. We cautioned Berrocal that failure to comply with our order may result in dismissal pursuant to Rule 42.3. On June 24, 2026, Berrocal filed a non-

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2026-CI-12325, styled Henry B. Berrocal v. Wells Fargo, pending in the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Antonia Arteaga presiding.

04-26-00486-CV

compliant petition that also failed to contain a record. We take judicial notice of the record filed in Cause No. 04-26-00473-CV.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only when the relator can show (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion or violated a duty imposed by law; and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law, such as an appeal. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The party seeking relief has “the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record to establish their right to mandamus relief. Id. at 837; see also In re Allen, No. 04-12-00291-CR, 2012 WL 2030120, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 6, 2012, no pet.) (The “relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief.”). Having taken judicial notice of the record in Cause No. 04-26-00473-CV as well as the petition and filings submitted in this matter, we have determined that Berrocal has not established that he is entitled to the relief requested. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. The motion for temporary relief is dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM