IN RE: DONNY JOE CURRY (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is relator's May 22, 2017 “interlocutory appeal and motion for proof of public underwriting by writ of mandamus,” which we treat as a petition for writ of mandamus. In the petition, relator argues that the trial court is “operating ultra vires and malum in se” and asks this Court to order the trial court to provide proof that it has the authority to act and has required surety bonds be filed in the underlying case.

As the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Lizcano v. Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (Alcala, J. concurring); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The petition does not include a supporting record or appendix as required by rules 52.3(k) and 52.7 and is not certified as required by rule 52.3(j). TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.3(j), 52.7. Each of these deficiencies alone is sufficient to warrant denial of the petition.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny relator's May 22, 2017 “interlocutory appeal and motion for proof of public underwriting by writ of mandamus.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE