In re Michael Anthony Mayes, 13-26-00172-CR, February 23, 2026.
On appeal from the 24th District Court of Calhoun County and the 28th District Court of Nueces County.
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus because the relator failed to provide a supporting record, documentation, or substantive legal argument as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. This opinion reinforces the principle that mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy that will be summarily denied when the relator fails to meet the strict evidentiary and briefing burdens imposed by TRAP 52.
Relevance to Family Law
For the Texas family law practitioner, this criminal mandamus serves as a stark reminder of the procedural pitfalls inherent in challenging temporary orders. Because temporary orders are generally not subject to interlocutory appeal, mandamus is the primary—and often only—vehicle for relief regarding temporary custody, support, or property injunctions. This case underscores that a "emergency" or "equitable" plea for relief cannot bypass the mandatory requirement of a sworn record; filing a petition without a complete reporter’s record and authenticated exhibits is a fatal strategic error that ensures denial before the court even reaches the merits of the case.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Michael Anthony Mayes, proceeding pro se, filed a pleading with the Thirteenth Court of Appeals requesting jail time credit and a judgment nunc pro tunc, as well as an examining trial. The Court liberally construed the pleading as a petition for writ of mandamus. The underlying disputes arose from two different trial courts: the 24th District Court of Calhoun County and the 28th District Court of Nueces County. Despite the gravity of the relief sought, the relator submitted his requests without any supporting documentation from the trial court proceedings, transcripts of hearings, or copies of the orders he intended to challenge.
Issues Decided
The central issue was whether a relator can establish entitlement to mandamus relief when the petition fails to include a supporting record, an appendix of relevant documents, or a clear legal argument supported by citations to authority, as mandated by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7.
Rules Applied
The Court applied the stringent standards for mandamus relief, which require the relator to establish that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law.
Crucially, the Court relied on the procedural mandates of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure:
* TRAP 52.3(i): Requires the petition to contain a clear and concise argument with appropriate citations to authorities and the record.
* TRAP 52.3 & 52.7(a): Delineates the required form and contents of a petition and mandates that the relator "must file" a record containing sworn copies of every document material to the claim for relief.
Application
The Court's application of the law was straightforward: the burden of proof in a mandamus proceeding lies entirely with the relator. Justice Fonseca noted that because Mayes provided no record, the Court was effectively blind to the history of the case. In original proceedings, the appellate court does not search the trial court's file; the relator must bring the record to the appellate court.
The Court observed that without argument or authority, it could not ascertain the merits of the relator's claims regarding jail time credit or the necessity of a judgment nunc pro tunc. Because the relator failed to provide "sworn or certified copies" of the documents showing the trial court's alleged failure to act, the Court found it impossible to determine if a ministerial duty had been breached.
Holding
The Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus in both cause numbers.
The Court held that the relator failed to meet the burden of proof required for mandamus relief. Specifically, the failure to provide a record in compliance with TRAP 52.7(a) was fatal to the petition.
Furthermore, the Court held that the lack of substantive legal argument and citations to authority under TRAP 52.3(i) precluded the Court from even evaluating the merits of the request.
Practical Application
In family law litigation, practitioners often seek mandamus to stay a "turnover" order or a change in the designation of the parent with the exclusive right to determine primary residence. If you are the relator, you must ensure that your "Appendix" is not just a collection of papers, but a properly authenticated record. If the court reporter has not yet transcribed the temporary orders hearing, you must at least provide a sworn statement explaining why the record is unavailable and include the necessary affidavits to establish the facts at the trial level. Conversely, if you are defending a mandamus, your first move should be a "Rule 52 Audit." If the relator missed even one material exhibit or failed to verify the petition properly, you should move for an immediate denial based on the Mayes standard.
Checklists
Mandamus Record Essentials
- The Record:
- Include a certified or sworn copy of every order complained of.
- Include a certified or sworn copy of every document whose contents are material to the claim.
- Provide a complete transcript of the relevant hearing (the Reporter's Record).
- The Verification:
- Ensure the relator or their counsel has verified the petition with a proper affidavit stating that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence in the appendix or record.
- The Appendix:
- Tab and index all exhibits for the Court's ease of navigation.
Avoiding Summary Denial
- Legal Argument:
- Connect every factual allegation to a specific page in the Appendix.
- Provide a clear "Standard of Review" section focusing on the "abuse of discretion" or "ministerial act" requirement.
- Citation of Authority:
- Do not rely on "equity" alone; cite specific statutes (e.g., Texas Family Code § 105.001) or controlling case law that limits the trial court's discretion in the specific scenario.
Citation
In re Michael Anthony Mayes, Nos. 13-26-00171-CR, 13-26-00172-CR, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 23, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be weaponized in high-conflict custody or property disputes. When an opposing party files a "hail mary" mandamus to stop a temporary sale of a residence or to challenge an interim fee award, their counsel is often working under extreme time pressure. This pressure leads to procedural shortcuts—specifically, failing to file a complete record or failing to properly authenticate the exhibits in the appendix.
Under In re Mayes, you can argue that the Court of Appeals should not even reach the "abuse of discretion" analysis because the relator's failure to provide a TRAP 52-compliant record is a threshold failure. In the fast-moving world of family law temporary orders, a "deficient record" argument is the most efficient way to kill a mandamus petition and keep your trial court victory intact.
~~3c7f1f5e-4267-403b-b314-1af8396aba88~~
