In Re Paige Mycoskie v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: 03-25-00431-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00431-CV

In re Paige Mycoskie

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Paige Mycoskie has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of

the trial court’s order granting real party in interest Johnson-Power Construction, Inc.’s Amended

Fourth Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions. We deny mandamus relief for the reasons

stated below.

Relator did not file a mandamus record with her petition but instead solely filed an

appendix. “Because relator attempts to use the appendix as a mechanism for attaching what should

be included in the mandamus record, [s]he must comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

52.7(a)(1).” In re Pentland, No. 03-22-00717-CV, 2023 WL 307476, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin

Jan. 19, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Thus, relator “must file with the petition . . . a properly

authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any

exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the

matter complained.” Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(2). The trial court’s order indicates that it heard real party’s motion on June 11, 2025,

and considered “the pleadings on file, the admissible evidence, and the arguments of the parties”

in reaching its decision. Yet, relator has not supplied this Court with a transcript from the hearing

and any exhibits admitted at that hearing, nor has she stated that no testimony was adduced in

connection with this matter. See id.

It is relator’s burden to provide a sufficient mandamus record to establish their right

to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “This court

cannot make a sound decision based on an incomplete picture.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding). “Those seeking the extraordinary

remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable procedural rules. Chief among these is the critical

obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete and adequate record.” Id. (footnote

omitted); accord In re Smith, No. 03-14-00478-CV, 2014 WL 4079922, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin

Aug. 13, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Because we lack a sufficient mandamus record, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus without prejudice to her refiling a petition in the future. Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a); see

In re Smith, 2014 WL 4079922, at *2. We also deny relator’s motion for emergency relief.

__________________________________________ Maggie Ellis, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Ellis

Filed: June 20, 2025