In Re: Philip Floyd v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re: Philip Floyd v. the State of Texas (In Re: Philip Floyd 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.
Opinion
DENIED and Opinion Filed February 27, 2024
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00192-CV
IN RE PHILIP FLOYD, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 471st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 471-02423-2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Breedlove Opinion by Justice Breedlove Before the Court are relator’s February 22, 2024 petition for writ of
mandamus and February 26, 2024 emergency motion for temporary relief. In his
petition, relator challenges a trial court’s turnover order on the basis that the trial
court purportedly refused to allow relator to testify at the turnover hearing. In his
emergency motion, relator seeks a stay of all trial court proceedings pending this
Court’s action on the petition.
Entitlement to mandamus relief requires a relator to show that the trial court
clearly abused its discretion and that the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding).
Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g)–(h), 52.3(k), 52.7(a)(1). For instance,
none of the documents included in relator’s appendix or record are properly certified
or sworn copies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a)(1); see also In re Romero, No.
05-23-00922-CV, 2023 WL 6226322, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 26, 2023, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Lancaster, No. 05-23-00381-CV, 2023 WL 3267865,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 5, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Additionally,
relator failed to adequately brief how the trial court clearly abused its discretion and
how relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
We also deny relator’s emergency motion as moot.
240192f.p05 /Maricela Breedlove/ MARICELA BREEDLOVE JUSTICE
–2–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re: Philip Floyd v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-philip-floyd-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.