### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03 - 22 - 00717 - CV

In re Irwin Pentland

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator Irwin Pentland , an indigent inmate appea ring pro se, has filed a petit io n for writ of mandamus seeking to have this Court order the Tra vis County district courts to “ give consideration to his properly made pleadings and t o do so timely. ” Relator did not file a record with his petition , or with his prior petition of which he r equ est s we t ake judicial notice, but instead filed an appendix with each petiti on . Cf. Tex. R. App. P. 52.7 (requ iring relator to file record and listing its required contents) ; see also id. R. 52.3(k) (re quiring relator to include appendix with pe titio n and listing its required contents)
. Because relator attempts to use the appendix as a mecha nism for attaching what should be included in the mandamus record, he must compl y with Texas Rule of Appellate Pro cedure 52.7(a)(1)
. See id. R. 52.7(a)(1) , (2) ( re qui ring relator to file “ a certified o r sworn copy of eve ry document that is material to the relator ’ s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlyin g proceeding ” and “ a pro perly authentic ated transcript ” of relevant testimony and exhibits from und e r lying procee ding or “ a statement that no test imony was adduced in connection with the matter complained ” ) ; In re Tidwell , No. 0 6

- 21

- 00117

- CV , 2022 WL 163815, at * 1 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana Jan. 19, 2 022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
.2 Because the record i n a ma ndamus proceeding is assembled by the parties, we
mu st strictly enforce the authenticatio n requirements of Rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record. See Tidwell , 202 2 WL 163815 , at *1 ; In re Smith , No. 05

- 19

- 00268

- CV , 2019 WL 1305970, at * 1

– 2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Mar. 22, 2019, orig. proceeding ) (mem. op.)
. While some of the documents in relator ’ s appendix a re file

- stamped , the September 17, 2022 letter o n which he relies for relief

— which letter request s a hearing on his enforcement actio n and t he issuance of a subpoena in support of the enf orc ement hearing

— is not file

- stamped, certified,
or sworn . Additionally, relator has n either filed a properly authenticated hearin g transcript nor repres ented that no relevant testimony was adduced in connect ion with th is matter. Relator has thus not filed a record in compliance with Rule 52.7
. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)
. It is the rel ator ’ s burden to provide th is Court with a sufficient record to est a blish the right to mandamus relief
. See Walker v. Pack er , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992 ) ( orig. proceeding ) ; In re S mith , No. 03

- 14

- 00478

- CV, 2014 WL 4079922, at *1 ( Tex. App.

— Au stin Aug . 13, 2014, orig. proceeding ) (mem. op.)
. Because relator did not comply wi th the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e in th e ways noted above , we deny the petition for a writ of mand amus without prejudice to his refiling a petition in compliance with the applicable rules. Tex
. R . App. P. 52.7(a)(1), 52.8( a)
.

__________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice Before Justices B aker, Kelly, and Smith Filed: January 19, 2023