i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-10-00229-CV
IN RE Jonathan ZAVALA
Original Mandamus Proceeding1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 12, 2010
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On March 18, 2010, relator Jonathan Zavala filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking
to compel the trial court to vacate its January 21, 2010 order granting a new trial. However, relator’s
petition does not satisfy the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX . R.
APP . P. 52.3(d)(2) (statement of the case must include, “if the respondent is a judge, the name of the
judge, the designation of the court in which the judge was sitting, and the county in which the court
is located”); TEX . R. APP . P. 52.3(g) (statement of facts “must be supported by citation to competent
evidence in the appendix or record”); TEX . R. APP . P. 52.3(h) (in the argument section, “[t]he petition
1
… This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CI-05638, In the Matter of the Marriage of Jonathan Zavala
and Natalie Zavala, in the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Renée F. McElhaney
presiding. However, the order complained of was signed by the Honorable Antonia Arteaga, presiding judge of the 57th
Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.
04-10-00229-CV
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(k)(1)(A) (the appendix must contain
“a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter
complained of”); see also TEX . R. APP . P. 52.7(a) (“Relator must file with the petition [ ] a certified
or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed
in any underlying proceeding”). Due to the inadequacies in the petition, we do not reach the merits
of relator’s complaint.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. TEX .
R. APP . P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
-2-