NOS. 12-23-00043-CR

 12-23-00044-CR

 12-23-00045-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:

RAYMOND LEE BURNS, JR.,

RELATOR

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Raymond Lee Burns, Jr., acting pro se, filed this original proceeding on February 6, 

2023.1 That same day, the Clerk of this Court informed Relator that his petition fails to comply 

with appellate Rules 52.3(b), (d), (g), and (h)-(k) and 52.7. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (form and 

contents of petition); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7 (record). The notice warned that the petition would be 

referred to this Court for dismissal unless Relator provided an amended petition and the record 

on or before February 16. This deadline expired without a response from Relator.2

Generally, a party seeking mandamus relief must bring forward all that is necessary to 

establish his claim for mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 52.7 requires the relator to file a record as part of his petition in an original 

proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7. Specifically, a relator must file (1) a certified or sworn copy 

of every document that is material to his claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying 

proceeding; and (2) “a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any 

1 Respondent is the Honorable Edwin A. Klein, Judge of the 420th District Court in Nacogdoches County, 

Texas. The State of Texas is the Real Party in Interest.

2 We also note that Relator’s petition is not entirely clear as to the relief he seeks.
2

underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no 

testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). 

It is a relator’s burden to provide this court with a record sufficient to establish the right 

to extraordinary relief. See 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 a record in accordance with Rule 52.7. Absent a record, we cannot 

determine whether Relator is entitled to relief.3 See In re McCreary, No. 12-15-00067-CR, 2015 

WL 1395783 (Tex. App.–Tyler Mar. 25, 2015, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication). Accordingly, we deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

Opinion delivered February 28, 2023.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

3 Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable 

rules of procedure; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties represented by 

counsel. In re Guerrero, No. 12-21-00100-CR, 2021 WL 3412558, at *1 n.3 (Tex. App.—Tyler Aug. 4, 2021, no 

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
3

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 28, 2023

NO. 12-23-00043-CR

RAYMOND LEE BURNS JR.,

Relator

V.

HON. EDWIN A. KLEIN,

Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by 

Raymond Lee Burns Jr.; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-23-00043-CR and the 

defendant in trial court cause number F10,17399, formerly pending on the docket of the 420th 

Judicial District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus 

having been filed herein on February 6, 2023, 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 curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
4

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 28, 2023

NO. 12-23-00044-CR

RAYMOND LEE BURNS JR.,

Relator

V.

HON. EDWIN A. KLEIN,

Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by 

Raymond Lee Burns Jr.; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-23-00044-CR and the 

defendant in trial court cause number F10,17400, formerly pending on the docket of the 420th 

Judicial District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus 

having been filed herein on February 6, 2023, 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 curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
5

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 28, 2023

NO. 12-23-00045-CR

RAYMOND LEE BURNS JR.,

Relator

V.

HON. EDWIN A. KLEIN,

Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by 

Raymond Lee Burns Jr.; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-23-00045-CR and the 

defendant in trial court cause number F10,17401, formerly pending on the docket of the 420th 

Judicial District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus 

having been filed herein on February 6, 2023, 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 curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.