in Re Carlos I. Uresti, Relator

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-11-00196-CV IN RE Carlos I. URESTI Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 23, 2011 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On March 16, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a request for emergency relief, complaining of the trial court’s denial of a motion for legislative continuance. However, relator’s petition does not satisfy the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Relator’s petition fails to comply with numerous requirements outlined in 52.3(a)-(k). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (“[t]he petition must, under appropriate headings and in the order here indicated, contain” all of the items listed in 52.3 (a)- (k)). Furthermore, relator fails to include a clear and concise argument as to why the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for legislative continuance. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h). In addition, relator has failed to include an appendix or record that contains the motion for legislative continuance filed in the trial court and any other document necessary to obtain the relief sought in this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (k) & 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”). Finally, any motion for emergency relief must be filed in a separate motion from the petition in accordance with Rule 52.10. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10.

Due to the deficiencies in the petition for writ of mandamus filed in this court, we are unable to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for legislative continuance. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and any emergency relief sought are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM