In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-14-00250-CV 

IN RE BRUCE CARRINGTON, RELATOR 

 

Original Proceeding 

 

July 16, 2014 

 

OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Relator, Bruce Dwayne Carrington, has filed in this Court his petition for writ of 

mandamus. Though he has unsuccessfully sought mandamus relief on this same 

general topic on at least three previous occasions, in this, his fourth petition on the 

matter, he again complains of the absence from the record on his direct appeal of the 

“real” jury communication with the trial court. Again citing the duties outlined in TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 36.27 (West 2006), Relator re-urges this Court to compel 

Respondent, the Honorable Bradley S. Underwood, presiding judge of the 364th District 

Court of Lubbock County, to fulfill his ministerial duties “to record into the record all 
2

communications between the court and jury in a criminal proceeding.”

1

 We will deny his 

petition.

Relator’s Contentions

In his three previous petitions for writ of mandamus, Relator has complained that 

the jury note to the trial court that is contained as an exhibit in the appellate record of his 

2003 aggravated robbery conviction is a forgery and does not represent the actual note 

prepared by the jury foreman in that criminal proceeding.2 In what is now his fourth 

attempt at convincing this Court to compel Respondent to direct the inclusion of the 

“real” jury note into the appellate record, Relator again maintains that the note in the 

record is a forgery, this time he asserts, “by unknown persons.” Consequently, Relator 

maintains, Respondent has still failed to make certain that the “real” jury note was made 

part of the record, and this failure violates Respondent’s duties pursuant to Article 

36.27.

Availability of Mandamus

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no adequate 

remedy at law to redress the alleged harm and that he seeks to compel a ministerial act, 

 

1 Relator’s original direct appeal of his conviction was dismissed for want of jurisdiction for failure 

to timely file a notice of appeal. See Carrington v. State, No. 07-03-00541-CR, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 

1112 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 4, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 

granted Relator an out-of-time appeal. Ex parte Carrington, No. AP-75,094, 2005 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. 

LEXIS 12 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 9, 2005) (per curiam). This Court addressed the merits of his appeal and 

affirmed his conviction, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused his petition for discretionary 

review. See Carrington v. State, No. 07-05-00091-CR, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 2867 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 

Apr. 10, 2006, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.).

2

See In re Carrington, No. 07-14-00204-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6092 (Tex. App.—Amarillo

June 4, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Carrington, No. 07-14-00030-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 

2158 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 25, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Carrington, No. 07-12-

00220-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 8197 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 27, 2012, orig. proceeding).
3

not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial 

Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. procceding). 

Relator bears the burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. 

See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “Even a 

pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary 

relief he seeks.” Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. 

App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding) (concluding that incarcerated relator acting pro 

se still obligated to abide by pertinent rules of procedure, including satisfying burden of 

proof).

A petition for writ of mandamus must set out clearly, fully, and unreservedly, by 

direct and positive allegation, every fact necessary to show why the requested relief is 

mandated. Kopeski v. Martin, 629 S.W.2d 743, 745 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (orig. 

proceeding) (en banc). A mandamus action requires certainty as to both pleadings and 

facts. Johnson v. Hughes, 663 S.W.2d 11, 12 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, 

orig. proceeding). We may not deal with disputed areas of fact in a mandamus 

proceeding. See West v. Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex. 1978) (orig. proceeding). 

This “stringent test of exactness” is necessary because mandamus is an extraordinary 

remedy that should not issue “without careful, individual scrutiny of the facts alleged.”

Fisher v. Harris Cnty. Republican Exec. Comm., 744 S.W.2d 339, 340 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding) (quoting Bush v. Vela, 535 S.W.2d 803, 805 

(Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1976, orig. proceeding)).
4

To that end, the relator must provide the reviewing court with a record sufficient 

to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re 

Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding); see also

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (specifying required contents for appendix), 52.7(a) (providing 

that a relator must file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is 

material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). 

Moreover, a relator must certify that he has reviewed the petition and concluded that 

every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in 

the appendix or record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j).

Analysis

Relator provides nothing that sufficiently demonstrates to this Court that the jury 

notes and responses included in the record of trial court cause number 2003-402,456

are anything other than the notes prepared by the jury and delivered by the trial court’s 

bailiff to Respondent and Respondent’s carefully crafted responses to those notes. In 

fact, as we noted in our disposition of Relator’s second petition, we have gone so far as 

to review the record in that original appeal and discovered that, despite the 

representations Relator had made to this Court in his previous filings, the reporter’s 

record demonstrated that the very language of the purportedly “fake” jury note found in 

the record is the very note read into the record in open court at the time it was received. 

See In re Carrington, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 2158, at *7–10. In response, we observed 

as follows:

On pages 21 through 22 of volume 6 of the reporter’s record, we see that, 

in the presence of the State, Relator, and defense counsel, Respondent 
5

read in open court two jury notes and the trial court’s proposed and 

accepted responses to them, all of which are the very same notes and 

responses included in the reporter’s record and all of which Relator has 

included in his appendix and identified as the purported “forged” jury notes 

and “falsified” responses. By asserting that the hypothetical “real” note 

was the note read in open court, Relator has grossly misrepresented to 

this Court the facts supporting his petition for writ of mandamus. In doing 

so, Relator has unequivocally failed the “stringent test of exactness” and 

has likewise failed to show his clear and unqualified right to the 

extraordinary relief he seeks, and we deny him such. See Fisher, 744 

S.W.2d at 340.

Id. at *9–10.

Similarly, in his first petition in which he attempts to compel Respondent to 

provide a copy of the “real” jury note, Relator undertook a handwriting analysis to 

support his contention that it was Respondent who wrote the notes that appear as

record exhibits. See In re Carrington, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 8197, at *1–3. We 

declined to issue mandamus in that instance as well, refusing to resort to speculation or 

supposition when determining whether to issue extraordinary relief. See id. at *5–6 

(citing In re Stormer, No. WR-66,865-01, 2007 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1154, at 

*4 (Tex. Crim. App. June 20, 2007) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Gray, No. 07-

12-00152-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 4262, at *8 (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 25, 2012, 

orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.); and Frink v. Blackstock, 813 S.W.2d 602, 

604 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, orig. proceeding)).

In the instant petition, Relator maintains his position that the jury notes included 

as exhibits to the reporter’s record are forgeries and goes even further—as he must 

after the Court revealed his previous misrepresentations by reference to the reporter’s 

record—to advance the position that the portion of the reporter’s record at which the jury 

notes are read and answered by Respondent are “false transcriptions which conforms 
6

[sic] to the falsified jury note.” So, now, both the jury notes as exhibits and that portion 

of the reporter’s record are “false entries.” He further asserts, in the face of all evidence 

to the contrary, that the “real” jury note was, in fact, read in open court; it simply was not 

properly recorded by the official court reporter.

Nothing in Relator’s appendix—not the purported unsworn declaration of the jury 

foreman who claims to remember the note differently over ten years later and not 

Relator’s insistence that the note in the appellate record is a “fake” note—convinces the 

Court of anything other than what our careful scrutiny of the record has firmly 

demonstrated to us: that the note included in the appellate record was the note 

prepared by the jury foreman, delivered by the bailiff to Respondent, read into the 

record by Respondent, properly addressed and answered by Respondent, and 

accurately transcribed into the reporter’s record. Based on the record of the criminal 

proceeding and in light of the misleading or baseless representations Relator has made 

to this Court in his several petitions on this matter, we cannot conclude without resorting 

to wild speculation that the jury notes included in the record are forgeries “by unknown 

persons,” the “real” jury note or notes having actually been read in open court but the 

transcription of said reading was falsely recorded to reflect that the “fake” jury notes 

were read in open court. Such a confused set of facts defies common sense and, as 

we have noted, is clearly undermined by the record.

Conclusion

Because Relator has provided no credible evidence that would show that 

Respondent has failed to comply with Article 36.27, we conclude that Relator has failed 
7

to establish that he is entitled to the extraordinary relief he requests. Accordingly, we 

deny his petition for writ of mandamus. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice