Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

August 29, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00227-CR

IN RE RYAN JIVARO WHITAKER, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1463151

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 10, 2023, relator Ryan Jivaro Whitaker filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Chris 

Morton, presiding judge of the 230th District Court of Harris County, to “rule 

and/or pass judgment on each of his properly filed post-conviction pro se motions 

pending before the trial court . . . .” 
2

On July 27, we notified relator of procedural deficiencies with his petition 

for a writ of mandamus:

Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j); 52.7(a). Relator 

has not certified that he “has reviewed the petition and concluded that 

every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent 

evidence included in the appendix or record.” See Tex. R. App. P. 

52.3(j). Additionally, relator did not include with his 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” and “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.” See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a). 

An unsworn declaration is an alternate method that relator may use for 

certification. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 132.001.

We also notified relator that “his petition for writ of mandamus will be 

dismissed unless relator supplements and/or amends his petition to addresses 

the issues identified above on or before August 27, 2023.”

On August 23, 2023, relator filed a timely amended petition that included an 

unsworn declaration authenticating the documents attached to his petition, but 

relator neither certified that he “has reviewed the petition and concluded that every 

factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the 

appendix or record” (see Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j)), nor included “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” (see Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)).
3

Because there is not a proper record, we dismiss the petition for want of 

prosecution without ruling on the merits of relator’s petition and without prejudice 

to relator filing a new original proceeding that complies with the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See generally In re Kholaif, 624 S.W.3d 228 (order), mand. 

dism’d, 615 S.W.3d 369 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020) (orig. 

proceeding).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Spain, Hassan, and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).