DENIED and Opinion F iled October 27, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01127-CV No. 05-22-01128-CV No. 05-22-01129-CV No. 05-22-01130-CV No. 05-22-01131-CV IN RE KENZIE NELSON, Relator Original Proceedings from the Criminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F1133360, F1133384, F11333 85, F1133386, & F1133387 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burn s, Justice Partida-Kipness, and Justice Smith Opinion by Justice Smith Before the Court is relator’s Octobe r 19, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus wherein relator seeks relief against Dallas C ounty District Clerk Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot, a nd the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office. Relator contends that respondents have “failed to endorse and forward his petition or motion [for post-conviction DNA te sting] with a file number, the date and time that it was filed and a ffix his/her official signature thereto, and to the judge for his affixed official signature to rule thereon.” Relator requests this Court to–2– compel “the district clerk and district attorn ey to do its duty in the interest of justice.” Relator further requests “his records and docum ents to prepare and file a pro se brief and pro se 11.07 writ of habeas corpus.” To the extent relator seeks relief against the district clerk, district attorney, and district attorney’s office, we lack juri sdiction. This Court’s power to grant writs in original proceedings is conferred by § 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. We do not have writ jurisdiction over a district clerk, district attorney, or district attorney’s office unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction in another proceeding. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.221(a), (b); In re Hunter , No. 05-21- 00731-CV, 2021 WL 5998004, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 20, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (district attorney); In re Cabrera , No. 05-15-01106-CV, 2015 WL 5692735, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 29, 20 15, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (district clerk). Relator does not have an appeal pending before this Court, and this Court does not have jurisdiction over post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 11.05; see also Cabrera , 2015 WL 5692735, at *1. Thus, the relief sought by relator against the district clerk, district attorney, and district attorney’s office is not nece ssary to enforce this Court’s jurisdiction. To the extent relator’s petition could be construed as requesting relief against the trial court based on an alleged failure to rule on relator’s motion for postconviction DNA testing, relator has not demonstrated entitlement to mandamus–3– relief. To establish a right to mandamus relief in a crimin al case, the relator must show that the trial court violated a minist erial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks , 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in numerous respects. See, e.g. , T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(d)(3), 52.3(f)–(h), 52.3(j), 52.3(k), 52.7(a)(1). For instan ce, relator’s petition bears an unsworn declaration stating that he d eclares “under the penalty of perjury that all allegations of fact contained therein are true and corr ect to the best of my knowledge.” But this certification does not comply with rule 52.3(j). See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(j); In re Reed , No. 05-20-00086-CV, 2020 WL 1227172, at *1 (Tex. App.—D allas Mar. 13, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). The petition is also not supported by an appendix or record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—D allas 2008, orig. proceeding). Relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficien t record to show he is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Without a certified petition and appendix or record, relator has not carried his burden. See In re Jones , No. 05-22-01113-CV, 2022 WL 12338493, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 21, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); Butler , 270 S.W.3d at 758–59. Accordingly, to the extent relator seek s a writ of mandamus against the district clerk, district attorney, and district attorn ey’s office, we dismiss relator’s petition for–4– want of jurisdiction. To the extent relato r seeks a writ of mandamus against the trial court, we deny re lator’s petition. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a).

221127F.P05 / Crai g Smith / CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE