In Re Macario Rincon, 13-26-00165-CR, February 19, 2026.
On appeal from Unknown
Synopsis
Mandamus relief is unavailable when a relator fails to comply with the strict procedural mandates of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7. In this memorandum opinion, the Court of Appeals denied the petition because the relator failed to provide a supporting record, legal authority, or a cogent argument establishing a ministerial duty and the lack of an adequate legal remedy.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-stakes family law litigation—particularly when seeking emergency stays of custody orders or challenging the denial of a jurisdictional plea—mandamus is often the practitioner’s only lifeline. This case serves as a stark warning: even if the trial court’s error is egregious, the appellate court will not rescue a petition that fails the “procedural rigor” test. For family lawyers, a “rush job” on an emergency petition that omits a sworn record or lacks precise citations is a strategic failure. The appellate court’s refusal to “ascertain the merits” in the absence of a TRAP-compliant filing means your client’s emergency relief dies on the vine due to a preventable technicality.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Macario Rincon filed a pro se pleading styled as a “Relator’s Plea for Reduction of [Sentence].” Because there was no pending appeal and the pleading sought to compel action regarding a sentence, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals liberally construed the filing as a petition for writ of mandamus. Rincon generally alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and sought a reduction in his sentence. However, the filing was essentially a “bare bones” request; it did not reference a specific judgment or order subject to appeal, nor did it include the necessary documentation or legal briefing required to support an original proceeding in the court of appeals.
Issues Decided
The central issue was whether a relator is entitled to mandamus relief when the petition fails to provide a supporting record, citations to authority, or a structured legal argument as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Rules Applied
The court relied on the foundational requirements for mandamus relief, noting that a relator must establish both a ministerial duty (as opposed to a discretionary judicial act) and the absence of an adequate remedy at law. Procedurally, the court applied TRAP 52.3(i), which requires a petition to contain a clear and concise argument with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record. Furthermore, it applied TRAP 52.7(a), which mandates that a relator file a record containing sworn copies of every document material to the claim for relief.
Application
The court’s analysis focused on the relator’s failure to carry the heavy burden of proof inherent in original proceedings. The court noted that it is the relator’s responsibility to provide a sufficient record to establish the right to relief. Because Rincon’s petition contained no supporting documentation, no legal authorities, and no structured argument, the court was unable to determine if a ministerial duty even existed. The court emphasized that without a record of the underlying proceedings, it could not ascertain the merits of the request. The opinion highlights that while courts may liberally construe the intent of a pro se filing, they cannot waive the substantive procedural requirements that allow the court to exercise its jurisdiction.
Holding
The court held that the relator failed to meet his burden to obtain relief under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Because the petition failed to meet the form and content requirements of Rule 52.3 and the record requirements of Rule 52.7, the court denied the petition for writ of mandamus and all relief sought.
Practical Application
This case reinforces the “procedural gatekeeping” function of the Texas appellate courts. In family law, we often encounter “emergency” mandamus petitions filed in the heat of a custody battle or following a problematic temporary orders hearing. Practitioners must treat the TRAP 52 requirements as jurisdictional in practice. A missing reporter’s record or an unauthenticated exhibit is fatal. Even if your client is facing an immediate and irreparable harm—such as a child being moved out of state—the appellate court will not fill in the evidentiary gaps for you.
Checklists
Mandamus Briefing Essentials
- Include a comprehensive Table of Contents and Table of Authorities.
- Provide a “Statement of the Case” that clearly identifies the underlying order and the parties involved.
- Draft a “Statement of Jurisdiction” that specifically cites the Government Code and TRAP 52.
- Ensure every factual assertion in the “Statement of Facts” is keyed to a specific page number in the Appendix or Record.
- Explicitly argue why the trial court’s action was a “clear abuse of discretion” (the civil/family equivalent of the ministerial duty standard).
- Detail exactly why no adequate remedy by appeal exists, specifically addressing why waiting for a final judgment would cause irreparable loss of rights.
The Mandatory Record (TRAP 52.7)
- File a separate “Relator’s Record” containing certified or sworn copies of every document material to the claim.
- Include a properly authenticated transcript of the relevant hearing (the reporter’s record).
- If a transcript is unavailable, provide an affidavit explaining why and detailing the efforts made to obtain it.
- Verify that all exhibits are clearly marked, indexed, and compliant with electronic filing requirements.
- Ensure the record is filed contemporaneously with the petition to avoid immediate dismissal.
Citation
In re Macario Rincon, 13-26-00165-CR, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 19, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
The full opinion of the court can be found here: Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling is a powerful defensive tool for the Respondent in a family law mandamus proceeding. If an opposing counsel files an emergency petition to stay a custody transfer or a property sale but fails to provide a complete record of the underlying hearing or fails to authenticate trial court exhibits, Rincon provides the roadmap for a response.
You can effectively weaponize these procedural failures by moving for an immediate denial based on the Relator’s failure to carry their burden under TRAP 52.3 and 52.7. In many cases, by the time the Relator corrects these procedural defects and refiles, the “emergency” has either been mooted by trial court action or the momentum of the litigation has shifted. Never underestimate the power of procedural rigor; in the Thirteenth Court, the merits are irrelevant if the record is deficient.
~~2dd3fa01-006d-4b20-aa01-86ae3e9f6485~~
Share this content: