DENIED and Opinion Filed December 10, 2020 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00606-CV IN RE JEROME JOHNSON, Relator Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F01-53637-JH MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns 1 and Justices Os borne and Reichek Opinion by Chief Justice Burns In this original proceeding, J erome Johnson petitions for a wri t of mandamus to compel the trial court to i ssue appealable written findings denying relief on his motion seeking forensic DNA testing. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN
. art. 64.005 (allowing appeal in DNA testing proceeding in same manner as ot her criminal appeals). Relator has also filed motions for disclosure, discov ery, and inspection of various records; to appoint counsel; and to conduct a court of inquiry to examine his allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and a conspiracy agains t him between the

1 The Honorable David L. Bridges, Justice, participated in the s ubmission of this case; however, he did not participate in the issuance of this memorandum opinion due to his death on July 25, 2020. Chief Justice Robert Burns has substituted for Justice Bridges in this cause.–2– trial court judge who presided over his trial and the prosecuto r. We deny relator’s petition and his pending motions. Upon completion of DNA testing, the DNA testing statute obliges the trial court to conduct a hearing and i ssue a finding establishing “wh ether, had the results been available during the trial of the offense, it is reasonabl y probable that the person would not have been convicted.” See id

. art. 64.04. A written finding would be necessary before relator can appeal the trial court’s ruling. See id

. art. 64.05. Conducting the hearing and issuing a formal finding is a minist erial duty for the trial
court. In re Jackson , 238 S.W.3d 603, 605 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, orig. proceeding). Relator’s evidence shows the tria l court ordered testing and co unsel sent relator a copy of the testing re sults, dated September 11, 2019 , which appears to show relator’s DNA profile is a match to the vaginal swab from the victim. In a November 21, 2019 letter to the t rial court, relator narrates t hat counsel told him counsel would present the matter to the trial court to make fin dings in accordance with article 64.04. Relator alleges, but does not prove, that t he trial court has never entered written findings in his DNA proceeding. Relator bears the burden to provide the Court with a sufficient record to show his entitlement to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); In re Long , 607 S.W.3d 443, 446 (Tex. App.—Texarkana, orig. proceeding). To meet his evidentiary burden, r ule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires the relator to file an–3– appendix with his petition that contains “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other docum ent showing the matter complai ned of.” T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Rule 52.7(a)(1 ) requires the relator to file with the petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to t he relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7(a)(1). The Court granted relator’s motion to supplement the mandamus r ecord with documents relator filed as part of a previous mandamus proceedi ng involving the same subject matter. See In re Johnson , No. 05-19-00725-CV, 2019 WL 3852654 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 16, 2019 , orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Relator attached to his petition: (1) a list of the documents h e had filed in cause no. 05-19-00725-CV showing his efforts to obtain post-con viction DNA testing; (2) a November 21, 2019 letter he wrote to the trial c ourt complaining about trial counsel and asking the tria l court to forward testing res ults directly to him; (3) a copy of the DNA report relator received from counsel; and (4) an October 7, 2019 letter relator sent to counsel c omplaining about counsel’s perf ormance and the lack of activity on his case. Relator’s documents show what he has filed with the trial court and what he has received from counsel, but they do not show what actions th e trial court has taken or failed to take after ordering the State to respond to the mo tion for testing. Relator has not provided the Court with a docket sheet or other evidenc e showing the trial court has not issued findings on his DNA testing proceeding. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P.–4– 52.3(k)(1)(A); In re Vasquez , No. 05-15-00592-CV, 2015 WL 2375504, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 18, 2015, orig. p roceeding) (mem. op.) (conclud ing relator failed to show grounds for mandamus abse nt docket sheet or other evide nce that the trial court had not acted on motion); In re Creag , No. 12-17-00191-CV, 2017 WL 2665987, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler J une 21 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (concluding relator not entitled to mandamus to rule on motion to correct bill of costs where mandamus record did not include evidence, such as docket sheet, showing trial court had not ruled on motion). Without a record showing what actions the trial court has taken or failed to tak e, relator cannot show that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See Vasquez , 2015 WL 2375504, at *1. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to refiling with proper supporting documentation. We deny all pend ing motions.

200606F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE