In re Autry LeeJones Appeal from Probate Court No 4 of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued August 10, 2021 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-21-00310-CV ——————————— IN RE AUTRY LEE JONES, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Autry Lee Jones, acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to direct the trial court rule on relator’s motion “to reopen the estate of Bertha Pope” and “motion for subpoenas” filed by relator.1 1 The underlying case is In the Estate of Bertha Pope, Deceased, Cause No. 407996, pending in Probate Court No. 4 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable James Horwitz presiding. Relator’s petition does not comply with the requirements enumerated in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g), (k). For example, the petition lacks an adequate appendix. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1) (requiring original proceedings to be filed with appendix that contains “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of”). Although the appendix includes the motion to compel a ruling on relator’s “motion for subpoenas,” it does not include a motion by relator “to reopen the estate of Bertha Pope.” In the absence of an adequate appendix or record, this Court cannot evaluate the merits of relator’s petition. See In re Jones, No. 01-20-00575-CV, 2020 WL 9071579, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 10, 2020, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.) (in previous mandamus proceeding involving relator, explaining “[i]n the absence of an adequate appendix or record, this Court cannot evaluate the merits of relator’s petition”). Relator’s petition also is deficient because there is no showing that respondent refused to rule on relator’s motions. See O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (to obtain mandamus relief, relator must show respondent had legal duty to perform non-discretionary act, that relator made demand for performance, and that respondent refused); In re Dong Sheng Huang, 491 S.W.3d 383, 385 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) 2 (“Filing a request for a ruling is insufficient to call the matter to the judge’s attention because a judge may be unaware of the request. Instead, the party demanding a ruling must set its request either for submission or a hearing.”). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. All pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Countiss. 3
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.
