In re Michael Christopher Moore Appeal from 10th District Court of Galveston County (dissenting memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed November 9, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-21-00578-CR IN RE MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER MOORE, Relator On Appeal from the 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 21-CR-2272 MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION I dissent because relator does not comply with the following mandatory provisions of Rule 52 regarding a proper original-proceeding record: Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j) (certification), (k)(1) (necessary contents of appendix); 52.7(a)(1) (sworn or certified copies), (a)(2) (properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 132.001 (unsworn declarations). Persisting in my view that our duty as judges is to reach a decision on the merits based on a proper record and that due process and due course of law require that this court give notice when the original proceeding record does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I would give notice of the deficiencies with the record and allow relator an opportunity to cure. If relator did not timely cure the deficiencies, then I would dismiss the petition for want of prosecution without reaching the merits. See In re Kholaif, 624 S.W.3d 228, 231 (order), mand. dism’d, 615 S.W.3d 369 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020) (orig. proceeding). I dissent from the court’s failure to provide notice and an opportunity to cure. I express no opinion on the merits of the petition for a writ of mandamus. /s/ Charles A. Spain Justice Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson (Jewell, J., majority). Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 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.
