in Re: Ana Acevedo, Relator--Appeal from 408th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
i i i i i i MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-09-00604-CV IN RE Ana ACEVEDO Original Mandamus Proceeding1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 7, 2009 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On September 24, 2009, relator Ana Acevedo filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its September 11, 2009 Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment. However, relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish her right to mandamus relief. See TEX . R. APP . P. 52.7(a) ( Relator must file with the 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 ); see also TEX . R. APP . P. 52.3(k)(1)(A); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). The record only includes the writ of 1 ¦ This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 08-CI-09529, styled In the Interest of S.K., pending in the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Larry Noll presiding. However, the order complained of was signed by the Honorable M ichael Peden, presiding judge of the 285th Civil District Court, Bexar County, Texas. 04-09-00604-CV attachment and the order issuing the writ of attachment. The record fails to include the petitions and motions discussed in the petition for writ of mandamus. In addition, relator fails to provide this court with a transcript of the hearing held in the trial court on September 11, 2009. Based on the record before us, we conclude that relator has not established the trial court abused its discretion. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839-40. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. TEX . R. APP . P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM -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.
