In Re: Dederian Demond Herron Appeal from 44th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Denied and Opinion Filed December 21, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-01523-CV IN RE DEDERIAN DEMOND HERRON, Relator Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-05553 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Evans Before the Court is relator’s December 19, 2018 “Motion for Procedurtal [sic] Order Motion for Stay–Writ of Mandamus.” To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). As the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Rules 52.3 and 52.7 require the relator to provide “a certified or sworn copy” of certain documents, including any order complained of, any other document showing the matter complained of, and every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Relator’s three-page filing includes none of the documents required by rules 52.3 and 52.7 and does not complain of any action by the trial court of which this Court could review for an abuse of discretion. Relator has failed to meet his burden and is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought). /David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE 181523F.P05 –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.
