In Re: Kristopher Gene Guillaume, Alan E. Devoe and Sylvia J. Guillaume v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 19, 2024
Docket05-24-00902-CV
StatusPublished

This text of In Re: Kristopher Gene Guillaume, Alan E. Devoe and Sylvia J. Guillaume v. the State of Texas (In Re: Kristopher Gene Guillaume, Alan E. Devoe and Sylvia J. Guillaume v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re: Kristopher Gene Guillaume, Alan E. Devoe and Sylvia J. Guillaume v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed August 19, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00902-CV

IN RE KRISTOPHER GENE GUILLAUME, ALAN E. DEVOE, AND SYLVIA J. GUILLAUME, Relators

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-24-00774-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III In their July 31, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus, relators contend the

judgment in the underlying case is void for various reasons.

Upon review, relators’ petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See In re

Backusy, No. 05-23-00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July

14, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.3(a),

52.3(d), 52.3(e), 52.3(g), 52.3(h), 52.3(j), 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1), 52.7(a)(2). For

example, the person filing the petition failed to certify that he or she has reviewed

the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record, as required by rule

52.3(j). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re Stewart, No. 05-19-01338-CV, 2020 WL

401764, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

(explaining that our precedent requires “exceptionally strict compliance” with rule

52.3(j)). Additionally, the documents included in the appendix and record are not

properly certified or sworn copies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1);

In re Leonard, No. 05-23-00546-CV, 2023 WL 3944376, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas

June 12, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (explaining how to obtain properly

certified or sworn copies).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

/Bill Pedersen, III/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 240902F.P05 JUSTICE

–2–

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Kristopher Gene Guillaume, Alan E. Devoe and Sylvia J. Guillaume v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kristopher-gene-guillaume-alan-e-devoe-and-sylvia-j-guillaume-v-texapp-2024.