## NO. 12

- 19

- 00190

- CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:
EDWARD W. SMITH,

RELATOR §
§
§ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Edward W. Smith, acting pro se, filed this original proceeding to challenge Respondent’s failure to rule on his motion nunc pro tunc. 1 On May 20, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified Relator that his petition for writ of mandamus failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(a)

- (h) and Rule 52.7. The notice further informed Relator that his petition would be referred to the Court for dismissal unless he provided an amended petition and the record on or before May 30. On May 23, Relator filed a supplemental petition for writ of mandamus to include sign atures. Relator has not filed a mandamus record or amended petition with this Court to correct the defects identified in the May 20 notice. A party seeking mandamus relief must bring forward all that is necessary to establish his claim for mandamus relief

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52. This entails filing a petition that includes the identity of parties and counsel, a table of contents, an index of authorities, a statement of the case, a statement of jurisdiction, issues presented, a statement of facts, and argu ment. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3(a)

- (h). Additionally, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7 requires the relator to file a record as part of his petition in an original proceeding. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.7. Specifically, a relator must file (1) a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to his claim for

1 Respondent is the Honorable Deborah Oakes Evans, Judge of the 87th District Court in Anderson County, Texas. The State of Texas is the Real Party in Interest.2 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.”
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.7(a). It is a relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. In re Daisy , No. 12

- 13

- 00266

- CR, 2014 WL 5577068, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Aug. 29, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). In this case, Relator did not provide the record in accordance with Rule 52.7. Absent a record, this Court cannot de termine whether Relator is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re McCreary , No. 12

- 15

- 00067

- CR, 2015 WL 1395783 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Mar. 25, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, because Relator’s petition fails to comply with the appellate rules, he presents nothing for this Court to review. We, therefore, deny his petition for writ of mandamus. Opinion delivered June 5, 2019. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)3 

## COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT

JUNE 5 , 2019
NO. 12

- 19

- 00190

- CR

EDWARD W. SMITH, Relator V.
HON. DEBORAH OAKES EVANS , Respondent

O RIGINAL P ROCEEDING
ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Edward W. Smith; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12

- 19

- 00190

- CR and the defendant in trial court cause number 87CR16

- 32731, pending on the docket of the 87th Judicial District Court of Anderson County , Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on May 20, 2 019, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue , it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby denied

. By per c uriam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.