in Re Joseph McCrey Ray

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 21, 2022
• Docket: 10-22-00291-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-22-00291-CR

IN RE JOSEPH MCCREY RAY

Original Proceeding

From the 77th and 87th District Courts Limestone County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding, Relator Joseph McCrey Ray seeks mandamus relief

against Respondents, the judges of the 77th and 87th District Courts, alleging that

Respondents “refus[e] to hear [his] testimony or indict [him] on [certain] charges” even

though he has been in jail for months. 1

“Mandamus will issue when there is a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary

act, a demand for performance, and a refusal.” O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837

1 Ray’s petition for writ of mandamus has several procedural deficiencies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. It also lacks a proper proof of service. See id. R. 9.5, 52.2. Because of our disposition and to expedite it, we will implement Rule 2 and suspend these rules in this proceeding only. See id. R. 2. S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Ray bears the burden of providing this Court

with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See In re Douthit, No.

10-12-00121-CV, 2012 WL 1548113, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco May 2, 2012, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.); In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig.

proceeding).

Here, Ray has not identified any specific motion, application, or request that he has

properly filed and adequately presented to Respondents and upon which Respondents

have then failed to rule. Ray’s petition for writ of mandamus is therefore insufficient to

establish his right to mandamus relief.

Ray’s petition for writ of mandamus is accordingly denied.

MATT JOHNSON Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Petition denied Opinion delivered and filed September 21, 2022 Do not publish [OT06]

In re Ray Page 2