Furthe r citation to T exas Rules of Appe llate Proce dure w ill be b y referen ce to “Rule 1 __.” NO. 07-09 -007 5-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D APR IL 3, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN RE DAVID MATT HEW LAYTON, REL AT OR,

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Rel ator , D av id M atthe w Layton, has file d a Peti ti on for W ri t of Mandamus se eki ng this cou rt to order the Honorab le Ana Estevezto act on a petitio n for w rit of aud ita querela that re lat or

fil ed i n the 251 Judic ial Dis tr ict C our t of Potter

C ounty , Tex as. W e deny the st peti ti on. Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Proc edure 52.3 identi fies the req uirements for a peti ti on 1 for w rit of

man dam us f iled in this Court. La yton has failed to comp ly w ith the se re q uirements
. Rul e 52. 3( b) req uires that the p eti tion i ncl ude a tabl e of cont ents w it h re ferenc es to t he page s of the peti ti on and an i ndi cat ion of the s ubj ectmatte r of each i ss ue or pointraised in the petitio n. Layton’s pet ition include s n o tab le of co nte nts. Rule 52.3 (c) re q uires that a pet it ion i n clu d e a n i ndex of author it ies i n w hic h al l author it ies ci ted i n theW e presu me thatLayton is cla iming t hatJu dge Estevez has failed to rule on his 2 moti on in a ti mely

m anner . Howev er , Layton has prov ide d no ev ide nce of w hen he filed the mot ion , w hether the moti on w as broug ht to the atten ti on of t he tr ial co urt, or the cur re nt sta te of the court ’s docket . See St oner v . M ass ey , 586 S.W .2d 8 43, 8 46 ( Tex . 197 9) ; Ex parte Bate s, 65 S. W .3d 133 , 134 -135 (Tex.Ap p.–Am arillo 2001 , no pe t.) (orig . procee ding). 2 peti ti on are ar ra ng ed al phabeti cal ly and the p ag e( s) upon w hic h the authori ti es are c it ed is i ndi cat ed. Layton’ s p eti ti on i ncludes no ind ex of author it ies
. Rul e 52. 3( f) req uires the pet itio n in clude a concise sta tem entof all issues or points pre sent ed for relief . Layton’s peti ti on i ncl udes no s uch state m e n t. Rul e 52. 3( g ) re q uires that a pet it ion i ncl ude a sta tement of fact s. Layton’ s peti ti on does not incl ude a sta tement of fact s. R ule 52.3 (h ) re q uires that a pet it ion i ncl ude a cl ear and conc is e arg ument for the cont enti ons made. Layton’s pe tition inclu des a n argume nt, b ut th e argume nt is nea rly indecip hera ble. Rule 52.3( i) req uires a pet it ion i ncl ude a pray er thatcl ear ly sta tes the nature of the re li ef soug ht. Layton’ s p eti ti on pray s t h a t th is Court“ int er v ene and prev ent t he respon dent’ s n oncom pliance to th e P etition for W rit of Audita Querela . . . by g rantin g this Pet ition.” Th is pray er does not cl ear ly

st ate t he n a tu re of the reli ef soug ht. F ina ll y , R ule 52.3 (j )( 1) 2 ide n ti f ie s items t hat mus t be inc lud ed i n the append ix to the p eti ti on. Rul e 52. 3( j) (1 )(A) re q uires that a c erti fied or swor n copy of an y order compl ain ed of or any othe r document s h o win g t h e ma tter com plaine d of be includ ed in th e ap pen dix. Th e inde x to Layton’s pet ition do es no t include a copy of the pe tition h e f iled w ith the district court nor do es it inc lud e any order entered by that cour t. As each of t hese it ems are req uired i n a p eti ti on for w ri t of mandamus and as Layton h as faile d to in cl ude them in hi s p eti ti on, we w il l not grantthe relief

thathe requests. How ever , i n t h e inte rest of judicial econ om y , w e w ill address the meri ts of Layton’ s p eti ti on.3

As bestw e c an di sc er n from La yton’ s a rg ument, h is p e ti ti on for w ri t of audi ta q uerela i s a n att empt t o c oll aterall y att ack hi s conv icti ons for agg ra v ated ki dnappi ng and a ggr a va t e d se xu a l a s s a u lto f a ch il d , wh ic h t h is Co u rta f f ir m e d in 1 9 9 7
. Se e L a yt o n v. Stat e, N o. 07 -9 6- 0234- CR , 199 7 Tex .App. LEX IS 5257 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo Oct . 3, 1997, pet. re f’d) ; Layton v . St a te , N o. 07 -9 6- 0235- CR , 199 7 Tex .App. LEX IS 5 258 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo Oct . 3, 1997, pet. r e f ’d ); Layton v . St ate, No. 07- 96- 0236- CR , 199 7 Tex .App. LEX IS 5 259 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo Oct . 3, 1997, pet. ref’d)
. Layton a ppears t o cont end thata “lighting” tech nique utiliz ed b y an expert w itness for the St ate rende red his expert opinio n un re li a b le
. F urthe r, it appe ars thatLayton is conte ndin g tha t the ex pert ma de n on-jud icial statem ent s thatw ere con tradicto ry of his trial testim ony. Thu s, by his peti ti on for w ri t of audi ta q uerela , Layton i s a ttempt ing to chal len g e the mer it s o f his final felon y conviction in the ab ove-identif ied case s. Audi ta q ue rel a i s , or w as , a w r i t av ai l ab l e to a j ud g me nt de bt or w ho se eks a rehe aring of

a ma tter on ground s of

newl y discovered evi den ce or newly ex isting defense s. McB rid e v. St a te , 11 4 S. W .3 d 5 5 6 , 55 7 (T e x.A p p .–Au st in 2 0 0 2 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Bl ack ’ s L aw Dictionary 126 ( 7 ed. 1999) ). Su ch re li ef is only av ail abl e if the peti ti on for the w ri t rais es th a new defense based i n law
. Id. at 557 n.2 (c it ing State v . Vasq uez , 889 S.W .2d 5 88, 5 91 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 1994, no p et.)). Accordin g to Layton’ s p eti ti on for w ri t of th mandamus, obj ect ion s t o the Sta te’ s e x per t w it ness es w ere rai sed at t ri al. Layton d oes not ide nti fy how

any of the c ontent ion s u rg ed in his peti ti on for w ri t of au dit a q uerela are bas ed o n n e wly d is c o ve re d e vid e n c e o r o n n e wly e xis t in g d e fe n s e s b a s e d in la w.4

Howev er , of g re ater

si g nific ance, a w ri t of

audi ta q uerela i s n ot an av ail abl e means of col lat erall y

att ack ing a fina l felony conv icti on in Texa s. See Ex par te M endenhal l, 209 S.W .3d 260 , 261 (Tex.App .–W aco 2 006 , no pe t.); Lyons v . Stat e, No. 06 -05-00 142 -CR, 2006 Tex .App. LEX IS 1 394, at * 2- *3 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2006) ( me m o . op. ); Thomas v . State, No. 12 -0 3- 00426- CV , 200 4 Tex .App. LEX IS 4 621, at * 2- *3 ( Tex .App. –Ty ler 2004, p e t
. re f ’ d ) ; M c B r id e , 1 1 4 S
. W
. 3 d a t5 5 7
. As e a c h o f t h e s e ca s e s e xp la in , t h e e xc lu s ive me a n s t o set as i d e a p r i o r fe l o n y c o n v i c t i o n i n a c o l l a t e ra l p ro c e e d i n g i s b y w a y o f a peti ti on for w ri t of habeas co rp us pursuantto arti cl e 11.07 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re . Id. Accordin gly , w e de ny relato r’s petition for w rit of man dam us.
Mackey K. Hancock Justice