In re Sheila Coleman Appeal from 312th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued December 23, 2021 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-21-00499-CV ——————————— IN RE SHEILA COLEMAN, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Sheila Coleman, filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining that the trial court issued “Void Temporary Orders, [a] Void Contempt Order, and [a] Void Default Divorce Decree Judgment,” and requesting that this Court vacate the trial court’s orders and judgment and “issue an [o]rder that lawfully appoints [relator] as [the] [s]ole [m]anaging [c]onservator” of her minor child.1 Because the petition does not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4 and 52.3, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to refiling in compliance with the applicable rules.2 TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B), 52.3; see In re Cole, No. 01-20-00807-CR, 2021 WL 243894, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 26, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (relator’s petition for writ of mandamus must comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, including rules 9.4 and 52.3). All pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Countiss, and Guerra. 1 The underlying case is In the Interest of G.N.S., Cause No. 2020-03341, pending in the 312th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Clinton E. Wells, Jr. presiding. 2 Relator’s mandamus petition contains a section titled “Statement of Procedural History.” Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3 does not provide for such a section in a petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (governing form and contents of mandamus petition). Thus, because rule 52.3 does not allow for a “Statement of Procedural History” section, we consider that section of relator’s petition as part of relator’s “Statement of Facts” for purposes of calculating the “length of [the] document.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4.(i)(1), (i)(2)(B); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
