Full text
in Re William Beatty
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May 14, 2013.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-13-00367-CV
IN RE WILLIAM BEATTY, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 133rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011-75990
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 29, 2013, relator filed a petition for writ of Mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Jaclanel McFarland, presiding judge of the 133rd District Court of Harris County, to vacate her order signed February 25, 2013, compelling discovery.
— 2 —
The petition states a hearing was held on the motion to compel on February 25, 2013. No reporter’s record has been filed. The petition does not state that no testimony was adduced. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7.
Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable procedural rules. In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding). “Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete and adequate record.” Id. (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992)). A court of appeals may not grant mandamus relief when the petition and record before it require the court to speculate. See In re Colony Ins., 978 S.W.2d 746, 747 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1998, orig. proceeding); Frink v. Blackstock, 813 S.W.2d 602, 604 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, orig. proceeding). The trial court’s order was entered after a hearing but we do not know what evidence, if any, was presented during the hearing. Because we do not know what the record before the trial court contained when the ruling was made, we cannot determine that the trial court abused its discretion. See In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 975 S.W.2d at 605; see also In re Colony Ins., 978 S.W.2d at 747. This Court cannot find an abuse of discretion on an incomplete record. Le, 335 S.W.3d at 814.
Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Busby.