NO. 07-08 -009 8-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 B FEB RU ARY28, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ In re ALB ER TO GOM EZ, Rel ator

_________

_________

_________

______ Opinion on Original Proc eedi ng fo r Writ of M

andamus

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL AND H ANCOCK, JJ. Pendi ng before thi s cour t is the appl ic ati on of Al ber to G omezfor w ri t of mandamus
conc er nin g hi s req uestto “rev iew enti re records of tr ial case number [94- 418- 631]. ” The pet ition do es no t clearly request this c o u rt t o order the 237 Distri ct Court of Lub bock th Coun ty to actupo n his mo tion to rev iew the records. Inste ad, it appe ars Gom ez w ant s a free app ell ate record prov ide d to him for the pur pose of “ proof [si c] his ‘ Act ual Inno cenc e’ in his ca se. ” F or

the follo w ing reason s, w e deny the appl ic ati on. Fi rs t, Rul e 52 of the appel lat e ru les req uires the a ppl ic ati on for extraordin ar y reli ef to i ncl ude a 1) se cti on i denti fyi ng the par ti es and c ounse l, 2) table of cont ents , 3) i ndex of author it ies , 4) st atement of the c ase, and 5) st atement of the i ss ues pr esent ed. T EX . R. A PP . P. 5 2 .3 . E a ch i s m iss in g f ro m G o m e z’ a p p lic a ti o n , a n d th a t h e m a y be ac ti n g pro se does not rel iev e hi m of compl y ing w it h tho se ru les

. Holt v. F.F. Ente rs. , 990 S.W .2d 7 56, 7 5 9 (T e x. Ap p .– A m a rill o 19 9 8 , p e t. de n ie d ). Als o m iss in g is a n ap p e n d ix co n ta in in g a2

"cer ti fied or sw or n c opy

of . .

. [the] doc ument[s ] show ing the matter complai ned of." T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(

j)

. In thi s cas e, the matter compl ain ed of w oul d be the req uestfor a free
re cord, w hic h an unsw or n or unc erti fied c opy

has been attac hed. Next, Gome zseeks the record in ef fort to determ ine w het her g roun ds exist to at tack his pr ior co nv ic ti on. This co urt affirmed his co nv ic ti on on June 12, 1996, in caus e number 07- 95- 0230- CR , w hic h acti on res ult ed in his ex haust ing his directappel lat e remedie s. See Ex par te B ro wn, 662 S

. W

. 2 d 3 , 4 (Te x . Crim. App . 198 3) (stating that o ne m ust f irst
ex hausthi s d irectappeal s b efore i nv oki ng ar t. 11.07 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re ). H is di re ct appeal s b ein g ex haust ed, h e i s g enerall y not enti tl ed to a fre e re cord. In r

e McC ar ty , N o. 08 -0 5- 0355- CR , 200 5 Tex . Ap p. L E X IS 1 0 1 9 7 a t*1 (T e x. App.–E l Paso Dec ember 8, 2005, or ig . proceed ing ); In r e T re vi no , 79 S.W .3d 7 94, 7 95- 96 (Te x . A p p . –Corpu s Christi 200 2, orig. proceed ing). T hus, the relief Gom ez ultim ate ly seek s from the tr ial co urt i s n o t p e rm itted b y l aw , w it hout a s how ing of ex cept ion al ci rc umstan ces as ex pla ine d i n In r e M il ler , No. 07- 07- 0144- CV , 200 7 Tex . Ap p. L EX I S 3764 (T e x. Ap p .–Am a rill o Ma y 1 6 , 20 0 7 , orig. pro ce e d in g) , and w e ha v e be en cite d to no such ci rc umstan ces . Accordin gly , the app lication for w rit of man dam us pe ndin g bef ore this co u rtis deni ed.
Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice