In Re: Jamal Terrell Bowens Appeal from 2nd District Court of Cherokee County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-14-00313-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: § JAMAL TERRELL BOWENS, § RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Relator seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to rule on his motion for a free copy of the record and his motion to convene a court of inquiry and require the trial judge to recuse himself from presiding over that proceeding.1 “Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable procedural rules. Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete and adequate record.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding). Here, we have notified Relator of various defects in his mandamus petition, including his failure to file either an appendix or a record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a). Without an appendix or a record, we are unable to determine that Relator is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Opinion delivered November 5, 2014. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (PUBLISH) 1 County. The respondent is the Honorable Dwight L. Phifer, Judge of the 2nd Judicial District Court, Cherokee COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT NOVEMBER 5, 2014 NO. 12-14-00313-CV JAMAL TERRELL BOWENS, Relator V. HON. DWIGHT L. PHIFER, Respondent Appeal from the 2nd District Court of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. J-03-088) ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by JAMAL TERRELL BOWENS, who is the relator in Cause No.J-03-088, pending on the docket of the 2nd Judicial District Court of Cherokee County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on October 30, 2014, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that a writ of mandamus should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby DENIED. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
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.
