DENIED and Opinion Filed June 12, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00546-CV 

IN RE GENTRY S. LEONARD, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the County Criminal Court No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. M2316874 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Reichek, Smith, and Kennedy 

Opinion by Justice Reichek 

Before the Court is relator’s June 1, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus 

wherein relator seeks relief from a bond reduction order that denied his request for 

a personal bond, which he claims is required under article 17.151 of the Texas Code 

of Criminal Procedure. 

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(a)–(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). Relator failed to certify his petition. 
 –2– 

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 a 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 

any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Certified copies may be 

ordered from the appropriate court clerk. See In re Hamilton, No. 05-19-01458-CV, 

2020 WL 64679, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. 

op.). Documents become sworn copies when they are attached to an affidavit or to 

an unsworn declaration stating under penalty of perjury that the person making the 

affidavit or unsworn declaration has personal knowledge that the copies of the 

documents attached are correct copies of the originals. See id.; see also TEX. CIV.

PRAC. &REM.CODE ANN. § 132.001. The documents contained in relator’s appendix 

and record are neither certified nor sworn copies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 

52.7(a)(1). 

Finally, we note that relator has filed his mandamus petition pro se, but his 

record indicates that he has court appointed counsel in the underlying criminal 

matter. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. Robinson v. 

State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Because relator’s complaint in 

his mandamus petition arises from the underlying criminal matter, relator must look 

to his appointed counsel for representation in this original proceeding. See In re Bice, 
 –3– 

No. 12-12-00038-CR, 2012 WL 2033131, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 6, 2012, 

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Wright, No. 05-08-00072-CV, 2008 WL 376162, 

at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 13, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Watson,

No. 07–08–00232–CV, 2008 WL 2583003, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 30, 

2008, orig. proceeding). 

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

230546F.P05 

/Amanda L. Reichek/

AMANDA L. REICHEK 

JUSTICE