DENIED and Opinion F iled 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 Octobe r 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.

T o establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, a relator must show that the trial court violated a ministeria l 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). 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 rela tor’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 T EX
. R. A PP
. 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. , T EX
. R. A PP
. 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.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(j). We are bound by this Court’s precedent requiring excepti onally 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. pr oceeding) (mem. op.). Relator included a certification stating “that the above and fore going 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 T EX
. R. A PP
. 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.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Rule 52.7(a)(1) requires the re lator 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.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7(a)(1). None of the documents included with relator’s petition ar e 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 leav e to file a petition for writ of mandamus. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 Golds t ein / BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE