DENIED and Opinion Filed 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, F1133385, F1133386, & 

F1133387 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Partida-Kipness, and Justice Smith 

Opinion by Justice Smith 

Before the Court is relator’s October 19, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus 

wherein relator seeks relief against Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre, Dallas 

County District Attorney John Creuzot, and 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 testing] with a file number, the date 

and time that it was filed and affix 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 attorney to do its duty in the interest of justice.” 

Relator further requests “his records and documents 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 jurisdiction. 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 TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 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, 2015, 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 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 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 necessary 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 criminal case, the relator must 

show that the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy 

at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. 

proceeding). 

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

Procedure in numerous respects. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(d)(3), 52.3(f)–(h), 

52.3(j), 52.3(k), 52.7(a)(1). For instance, relator’s petition bears an unsworn 

declaration stating that he declares “under the penalty of perjury that all allegations 

of fact contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.” But this 

certification does not comply with rule 52.3(j). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re 

Reed, No. 05-20-00086-CV, 2020 WL 1227172, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 13, 

2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). The petition is also not supported by an 

appendix or record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); In re Butler, 270 

S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding). Relator bears the 

burden of providing the Court with a sufficient 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 seeks a writ of mandamus against the district 

clerk, district attorney, and district attorney’s office, we dismiss relator’s petition for 
 –4– 

want of jurisdiction. To the extent relator seeks a writ of mandamus against the trial 

court, we deny relator’s petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

221127F.P05 

/Craig Smith/

CRAIG SMITH 

JUSTICE