In re Raymond C. Clark, Jr. Appeal from 300th District Court of Brazoria County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued September 27, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-16-00722-CV ——————————— IN RE RAYMOND C. CLARK, JR., Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Raymond C. Clark, Jr., has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, challenging a final order in a suit to modify the parent-child relationship. He requests that we direct respondent, the Honorable K. Randall Hufstetler, to vacate the order and grant a new trial.1 Because the trial court has signed a final order in the 1 The underlying case is In the Interest of H.C.C., a Child, Cause No. 68312, in the 300th District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, the Honorable K. Randall Hufstetler presiding. underlying proceeding, relator has an adequate remedy by appeal. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(b) (West 2014); In re Moore, No. 05-14-01173-CV, 2016 WL 80205, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2016, orig. proceeding) (citations omitted); In re Harrell, No. 01-13-00517-CV, 2014 WL 866044, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 4, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citations omitted).2 Accordingly, we deny the petition. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Lloyd. 2 In an issue in his petition, relator contends that he does not have an adequate remedy at law because portions of the electronically recorded trial court proceedings are inaudible. Relator may raise his contentions that the reporter’s record is incomplete or inaccurate in an appeal from the trial court’s order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(e), (f); see, e.g., Akinwamide v. Trans. Ins. Co., No. 01-15-00066-CV, 2016 WL 3662696, at *8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 7, 2016, no. pet. h.); Villagomez Invs., L.L.C. v. Magee, 294 S.W.3d 687, 689–90 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.). 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.
