## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 22

- 00068

- CR

IN RE STEVEN MACK MCGEE

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens2 

### ME MO RANDUM OPINION
Relator , Steven Mack McGee , an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking thi s Court to direct the Hon orable Brad Morin, presiding judge of the 7 1st
J udicial District Court of Harrison County, Texas, to i ssue a judgment nunc pro tunc correcting his judgment of conviction to reflect concurrent, rather than consecuti ve, sentences. Because McGee failed to provide us with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief , we deny the mandamus pet i tion.
M andamus will issue “only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion, and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law.” In re Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (citing Can t u v. Lo ngoria , 878 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. 1994); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

– 40 (Tex. 1992) )

. “ It is the relator ’ s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish his or her right to mandamus relief. ” Id

. (citing Walker , 827 S.W.2 d at 839

– 40; In re Pilgrim ’ s Pride Corp

. , 187 S.W.3d 197, 198

– 99 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2006, orig. p roceeding )); see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3, 52.7( a ). Rule 52.3 requires the person filing the petition for a writ of mandamus to “certify that he
or she has rev i ewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evide nce included in the appendix or record.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3( j). The petition in this case does not contain this required certification. In add i tion, the appellat e rules require that the appendix contain “a certified or sworn copy of any order complain ed of, or any other document showing the matter complained of,” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3( k)(1)(A ), and that3

the record contain “a certified or sworn co p y of every documen t that is material to the relator’s claim and that was filed in any underlying proceeding , ” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7( a)(1). Although Relator’s appendix contains copies of orders and other documents, they are not certified or

sworn. 1
McGee also state s that h e filed a motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc with the district
court requesting that the complained

- of judgment be corrected

. Even so , the appendix in this case does not contain a sworn or cer tified copy of the motion , or any document s howing that it has been presented to the trial court for a ruling . As a result, th e record provided fails to show that his motion was filed with the district clerk, that i t was presented to the trial court for a ruling, or that the motion has been pendin g for a sufficient time since such presentment. See In re Henry , 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). “Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,” we must “strictly enforce [ ] the authentication re quirements of rule 52 to ensure the inte grity of the mandamus record.” In re Smith , No. 05

- 19

- 00268

- CV, 2019 WL 1305970, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Mar. 22, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (quoting In re McKinney , No. 05

- 14

- 01513

- C V , 201 4 WL 7399301, at * 1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Dec. 15, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) ). On th is record, we cannot say that Relator has established a right to the relief he has requested.
See Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d at 662.

1 The last document in Relator’s appendix is a copy of a clerk’s certification dated S e ptember 3 , 2019

. Sin ce the appe ndix contains both documents that contain a file stamp and documents that do not , it is not clear to which documents, if any, the certification applies.4

For th at reason , we deny the pe t ition fo r a writ of mandamus.

Scott E. Stevens Justice Date Submitted: May 1 7 , 2022 Date Decided: May 1 8 , 2022
Do Not Pu blish