in Re Mark Anthony Petersimes

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 18, 2019
Docket09-19-00107-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Mark Anthony Petersimes (in Re Mark Anthony Petersimes) 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 Mark Anthony Petersimes, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-19-00107-CV _________________

IN RE MARK ANTHONY PETERSIMES

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 02-05-03239-CV ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding, Mark Anthony Petersimes asks this Court to order

the trial court to vacate an order sealing documents filed in a civil commitment

proceeding. 1 See generally Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.143 (West 2017)

(certain records filed in a civil commitment proceeding must be sealed); see also

1 Petersimes filed a procedurally defective petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3. Additionally, he failed to certify that he served a copy of the petition on the State as the real party in interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We use Rule 2, however, to look beyond these deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See Tex. R. App. P. 2. 1 Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a.2(a)(2) (excluding from Rule 76a documents in court files to

which access is otherwise restricted by law).

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only to correct

a clear abuse of discretion for which the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal.

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

proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig.

proceeding). After considering the petition and examining the exhibits contained in

the appendix, we conclude that Petersimes has not established that he is entitled to

mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 17, 2019 Opinion Delivered April 18, 2019

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

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

Related

In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America
148 S.W.3d 124 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Mark Anthony Petersimes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mark-anthony-petersimes-texapp-2019.