In Re Randall Kubosh v. the State of Texas

Opinion

NUMBER 13-23-00310-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE RANDALL KUBOSH

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

On July 13, 2023, relator Randall Kubosh filed a pro se petition for writ of

mandamus through which he asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing

a discovery order compelling Randall to allow the inspection of his cell phone. Relator

seeks to stay the trial court proceedings pending the resolution of his petition for writ of

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). mandamus.

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two

requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. The relator also has the burden to

provide a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. See Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 837; In re Ramos, 598 S.W.3d 472, 473 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020,

orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the limited and deficient record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that

relator has not met his burden of proof to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny

the petition for writ of mandamus and relator’s request for stay.

NORA L. LONGORIA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 17th day of July, 2023.