In re Gilbert Guevara Appeal from ... of ... County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00677-CV IN RE Gilbert GUEVARA Original Mandamus Proceeding PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 8, 2014 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED Relator Gilbert Guevara filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus on September 26, 2014. Relator does not adequately identify an underlying proceeding currently pending in any court in this appellate district, the respondent judge, or the nature of the specific relief sought from this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(d)(1-3), (i). In addition, relator s petition fails to satisfy several other requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)-(k). Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish a right to mandamus relief, including a copy of any order or other document showing the matter complained of. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a) ( Relator must file with the petition [ ] a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the 04-14-00677-CV relator s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding ). Relator has not provided this court with a record sufficient to establish his claim for relief. Due to the deficiencies in relator s petition and the lack of an adequate mandamus record, we are unable to determine whether the trial court has abused its discretion in any way. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM -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.