In Re: Michael A. Kennedy Appeal from 3rd District Court of Anderson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-17-00145-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: § MICHAEL A. KENNEDY, § RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Relator, Michael A. Kennedy, filed this original proceeding, in which he asserts violations of due process and professional conduct provisions by “judges.” We deny the petition. A petition for writ of mandamus “must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h). Fulfilling this duty entails more than proffering mere conclusions. In re Fitzgerald, 429 S.W.3d 886, 897 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2014, orig. proceeding). Instead, the relator must provide substantive legal analysis as well as citations to authority supporting his legal arguments and conclusions. Id. In this case, Relator’s arguments consist of mere conclusions without any discussion of applicable legal principles or controlling authority. Consequently, he has failed to provide the “clear and concise argument” and “appropriate citations to authorities” required by Rule 52.3(h). For this reason, we are unable to conclude that Relator is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Kennedy, No 12-12-00043-CR, 2012 WL 1884264, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler May 23, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, we deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Opinion delivered May 24, 2017. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT MAY 24, 2017 NO. 12-17-00145-CR MICHAEL A. KENNEDY, Relator V. HON. MARK A. CALHOON, Respondent ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Michael A. Kennedy; who is the relator in Cause No. 29326. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on May 12, 2017, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ 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., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J. 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.
