NUMBER 13-20-00510-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE CHRISTOPHER WAYNE HOLT
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
Relator Christopher Wayne Holt, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in the above-referenced cause on November 25, 2020. By five issues, relator
seeks to set aside an oral order which apparently holds relator in contempt, but suspends
confinement, for violations of a previous order regarding child custody and possession.
Relator has also filed a “Motion for Suspension of Rules” asking this Court to suspend the
application of the appellate rules that, inter alia, require him to provide a record of the trial
court’s ruling, the applicable reporter’s records, and all documents that are relevant to his
clam for relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2; id. R. 52.3(k); id. R. 52.7.
Mandamus is both an extraordinary remedy and a discretionary one. In re Garza,
544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). For mandamus to
issue, the relator must show that the trial court abused its discretion and that no
adequate appellate remedy exists to cure the error. In re N. Cypress Med. Ctr.
Operating Co., 559 S.W.3d 128, 130 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding); In re Christus
Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The
relator bears the burden of proving both requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492
S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827
S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). This burden requires that relator
provide the reviewing court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus
relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.7; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Carrington,
438 S.W.3d 867, 868 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014, orig. proceeding); In re Davidson,
153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus and the limited record provided, is not “of the tentative opinion that relator
is entitled to the relief sought or that a serious question concerning the relief requires
further consideration.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). As relator has acknowledged, the record
is deficient insofar as it fails to include documents that are material to relator’s claim for
relief and fails to include transcripts of the relevant trial court proceedings. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 52.7; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Carrington, 438 S.W.3d a t 868; In re
Davidson, 153 S.W.3d at 491. And further, relator has not provided the Court with a
written ruling or the reporter’s records indicating that a clear and specific oral ruling has
been made. See In re State ex rel. Munk, 448 S.W.3d 687, 690 (Tex. App.—Eastland
2
2014, orig. proceeding); In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
2001, orig. proceeding); see also 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.”). Accordingly, we deny relator’s motion for the
suspension of the appellate rules. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus without
prejudice.
LETICIA HINOJOSA
Justice
Delivered and filed the
2nd day of December, 2020.
3