Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens, 06-26-00006-CR, January 30, 2026.
On appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court of Gregg County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Sixth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus because the relator failed to provide a record consisting of certified or sworn copies of material documents as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7. The court emphasized that because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties, the procedural requirements of Rule 52 will be strictly enforced to ensure the integrity of the record.
Relevance to Family Law
In the high-stakes world of family law, mandamus is often the only mechanism available to challenge temporary orders involving conservatorship, possession, or temporary injunctions. Because these proceedings move rapidly and often rely on emergency filings, litigators frequently risk submitting uncertified portal downloads or incomplete sets of hearing exhibits. This ruling serves as a stark reminder: even a meritorious legal argument—such as a challenge to a void temporary order or an abuse of discretion in a SAPCR—will be dead on arrival if the record is not pristine and strictly compliant with the technicalities of TRAP 52.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Johnifer Ray Mumphrey sought mandamus relief to compel the trial court to reverse a conviction, alleging a jurisdictional defect in a “complaint/probable cause affidavit.” However, the record provided to the Sixth Court of Appeals was in total disarray. It included uncertified documents peppered with handwritten notes, pages arranged out of chronological order, and documents where critical information—such as the alleged offense date—was entirely illegible. Furthermore, the Relator attempted to rely on clerk certifications from a separate, prior habeas corpus proceeding rather than providing a properly authenticated and dedicated record for the current mandamus petition.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether a relator meets the heavy burden for mandamus relief when the supporting record is uncertified, incomplete, and fails to comply with the formal requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7.
Rules Applied
The court relied primarily on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(1), which mandates that 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.” The court also applied the standard from In re Long, 607 S.W.3d 443 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020), which dictates that courts must “strictly enforce” the requirements of Rule 52 because the parties, not the clerk, are responsible for assembling the mandamus record.
Application
The court’s analysis focused on the functional impossibility of reviewing a “messy” record. The court noted that the documents provided were not only unauthenticated but were also presented in a manner that obscured their legal significance. For instance, the Relator’s “complaint” appeared to have a signature page that was detached or from a different document entirely. Moreover, the Relator failed to include foundational documents necessary for any appellate review, such as the indictment, the judgment of conviction, or transcripts of the underlying proceedings. The court reasoned that it cannot find an abuse of discretion when the Relator fails to provide the very documents upon which the trial court based its decision. The narrative of the opinion suggests that the court will not “hunt” through a disorganized pile of uncertified papers to find a needle of merit; the burden of clarity rests solely on the Relator.
Holding
The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The court held that the Relator failed to satisfy the burden under TRAP 52.7(a)(1) by failing to provide a record that was both authenticated and complete.
The court further held that strict compliance with Rule 52 is a prerequisite for relief. Without a certified or sworn record, a Relator cannot show entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, and the court is under no obligation to overlook these procedural deficiencies.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case is a warning against “emergency-induced” sloppiness. When seeking mandamus for a stay of a custody transfer or challenging a “void” temporary order, the temptation is to pull documents from the e-filing portal and file them immediately. However, if those documents are not “certified or sworn,” the court is within its rights to deny relief without even reaching the merits. This is particularly dangerous in cases involving “off-the-record” chambers conferences or handwritten mediated settlement agreements (MSAs) that have been altered by the court; if the record doesn’t show the “clean” material documents, the appeal is effectively over before it begins.
Checklists
Gather Your Evidence
- Ensure every document in the record is either a “certified copy” obtained from the District Clerk or accompanied by a “sworn” affidavit from counsel attesting that the copies are true and correct.
- Verify that the “sworn” affidavit specifically references each document in the appendix or record by name and exhibit number.
- Double-check that all documents are legible; if a trial court’s handwritten notes on an order are illegible, provide a typed transcription or a clearer copy.
Organizing the Filing
- Arrange all documents in chronological order as they were filed in the trial court.
- Include every material document, including the motion that prompted the ruling, the response filed by the opposing party, and all exhibits offered at the hearing.
- Ensure the record includes the specific order being challenged; a “docket entry” is generally insufficient for mandamus relief.
Citation
In re Johnifer Ray Mumphrey, No. 06-26-00006-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 30, 2026, orig. proceeding).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be weaponized as a “procedural shield” in high-conflict litigation. When an opposing party files a “Hail Mary” mandamus to stop a child’s relocation or a property sale, your first line of defense should be a Rule 52.7 challenge. If the Relator—in their haste—files uncertified PDF copies from the court’s online portal without a supporting affidavit, or if they omit the State’s (or in your case, the Respondent’s) response from the trial court level, you should move for immediate denial based on Mumphrey and Long. You can effectively win the mandamus by forcing the court to focus on the “disarray” of the record rather than the “merits” of their grievance. In Texas appellate practice, procedural precision is a jurisdictional gatekeeper.
~~6deae4c9-0222-4a1b-a134-79d8cd8fa42d~~
Share this content: