In Re Mary Ruffin v. the State of Texas

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Majority and
Dissenting Opinions filed April 9, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00021-CV

IN RE MARY RUFFIN, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
County Court No. 2
Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CV-0091816

MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION

Persisting in my view that our duty as judges is to reach a decision on the
merits based on a proper record and that due process and due course of law require
that this court give notice when the original-proceeding record does not comply
with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I would give relator ten-days’ notice
of involuntary dismissal for failure to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 52.7(a) requiring (1) 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 and (2) a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony
from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a
statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter
complained. Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a); see In re Kholaif, 624 S.W.3d 228, 231
(order), mand. dism’d, 615 S.W.3d 369 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020)
(orig. proceeding); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1) (necessary contents of
petition); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Crim. Code Ann. § 132.001 (authorizing unsworn
declarations).

I dissent from the court’s failure to provide notice and an opportunity to
cure. I express no opinion on the merits of the petition for a writ of mandamus.

/s Charles A. Spain
Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson (Spain, J., dissenting).

2