In Re James Muzzy Appeal from 435th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-22-00438-CV __________________ IN RE JAMES MUZZY __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 13-01-00183-CV __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a mandamus petition, James Muzzy seeks to compel the trial court to vacate unidentified orders relating to Muzzy’s petition for transfer to less restrictive housing and supervision under Subchapter E of the Texas Health and Safety Code. See generally Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.0834. 1 Muzzy’s mandamus record lacks the petition Muzzy filed with the trial court, the State’s response to his petition, a record of any hearings conducted by the trial court, and any orders signed Muzzy is subject to an order of civil commitment as a sexually violent predator. See In re Commitment of Muzzy, No. 09-13-00496-CV, 2014 WL 1778254, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont, May 1, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.). 1 1 by the trial court. 2 Appellate courts do not decide cases in a vacuum. In a mandamus proceeding, the relator must file with the petition (1) a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in the underlying proceeding and (2) file a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding. Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a). Muzzy failed to satisfy his burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus without prejudice to refiling. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on January 18, 2023 Opinion Delivered January 19, 2023 Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ. Muzzy failed to certify that he served a copy of the petition on the Respondent and the Real Party in Interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We use Rule 2, however, to look beyond these deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See Tex. R. App. P. 2. 2 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.
