DENIED and Opinion Filed November 28, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-01077-CV 

IN RE JOSHUA SKINNER, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 194th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. X23-211-M 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Breedlove 

Opinion by Justice Goldstein 

Before the Court is relator’s October 30, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus. 

In his petition, relator seeks to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for 

expunction of criminal records. 

To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, a 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). When the requested relief is to compel a trial court to rule on a motion, 

the relator must show (1) the trial court had a legal duty to rule on the motion, 

(2) the relator requested a ruling, and (3) the trial court failed or refused to do so 

within a reasonable time. See In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, 
 –2– 

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). It is the relator’s burden to provide a record sufficient 

to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 

(Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). 

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

Procedure in numerous respects. See, e.g., TEX.R. APP. P. 52.1, 52.3(b)–(d), 52.3(f)–

(g), 52.3(j)–(k), 52.7(a). For instance, a petition seeking mandamus relief must 

include a certification stating that the relator “has reviewed the petition and 

concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent 

evidence included in the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). We are bound 

by this Court’s precedent requiring exceptionally strict compliance with rule 

52.3(j)’s requirements. In re Stewart, No. 05-19-01338-CV, 2020 WL 401764, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Relator included a 

certification stating “that the above and foregoing is true and correct to the best of 

[his] belief and knowledge.” This certification does not satisfy the requirements of 

rule 52.3(j). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding). 

Additionally, rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires a relator to file an appendix with his 

petition that contains “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any 

other document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). 

Rule 52.7(a)(1) requires the relator to file with his petition “a certified or sworn copy 

of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in 
 –3– 

any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). None of the documents 

included with relator’s petition are certified or sworn copies. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

Relator also filed a Motion for Leave to File an Application for Writ of 

Mandamus and Motion to Suspend a Rule. We deny both motions as moot. We note 

that it is not necessary to request leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1; In re Brager, No. 05-20-00544-CV, 2020 WL 3055901, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Dallas June 9, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 

231077F.P05 

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/

BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN 

JUSTICE