In Re Phillip Scott v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Phillip Scott v. the State of Texas (In Re Phillip Scott 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-24-00189-CV
In re Phillip Scott
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Phillip Scott, an inmate in the Comal County Jail, has filed an
ambiguously captioned pro se appellate submission with this Court entitled “Clear Error
Review,” complaining of alleged procedural irregularities in a civil commitment hearing under
Chapter 46B of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the 207th District Court, and asking this
Court to vacate a civil commitment order allegedly entered in that case on July 19, 2023. Having
reviewed the filing, we treat the submission as a petition for writ of mandamus and deny the
petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
We take judicial notice of a previous submission to this Court in which
Scott raised substantially similar issues and sought identical relief. See In re Scott,
No. 03-24-00157-CV, 2024 WL 1098217 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 14, 2024, no pet. h., orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.). As discussed in this Court’s memorandum opinion denying relief in
that case, it is relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief,
including by providing the reviewing court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); see also Tex. R.
App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document
that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”),
52.7(a) (specifying required contents for record), 52.3(k) (specifying required contents for
appendix).
Based on his failure to provide any record, we conclude that Scott has failed to
show an entitlement to relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex.
R. App. P. 52.8(a).
__________________________________________ Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis
Filed: March 27, 2024
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Phillip Scott v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-phillip-scott-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.