IN RE: LEOPOLDO LEAL--Appeal from 148th District Court of Nueces County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NUMBER 13-10-00102-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE: LEOPOLDO LEAL On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices YaÃ±ez, Rodriguez, and Garza Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1 Relator, Leopoldo Leal, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the foregoing causes on March 3, 2010. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. It is the relator's burden to provide this Court with a sufficient petition and record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See generally TEX . R. APP. P. 52. Specifically, for instance, the relator must file an appendix with the petition for writ of mandamus, and the appendix must include, inter alia, a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of. See id. 52.3(k). The relator must 1 See T EX . R . A PP . P . 5 2 .8 (d ) ( W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand dow n an opinio n but is not required to do so. ); T EX . R . A PP . P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions). also file a record including 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, and a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained. See id. 52.7(a). Further, relator must file a certification with the petition for the petition for writ of mandamus stating that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. See id. 52.3(j). Finally, the petition for writ of mandamus must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record. See id. 52.3(h). In the instant case, relator has failed to meet these requirements and has thus failed to provide this Court with a petition and record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. In fact, at the present time, the Court is unable to discern the nature of the relief sought by relator. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See id. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed this 4th day of March, 2010. 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.