DENIED and Opinion Filed March 29, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00355-CV 

No. 05-24-00356-CV 

No. 05-24-00357-CV 

IN RE KEITH HILL, Relator 

Original Proceedings from the Criminal District Court No. 1 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F-2154278, F-2159441, F-2253217 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel 

Opinion by Justice Nowell 

Before the Court is relator’s March 25, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus 

wherein he asks this Court to compel the trial court to order the Texas Department 

of Criminal Justice to post back-time jail credit. 

Relator’s status as an inmate does not relieve him of his duty to comply with 

the rules of appellate procedure. In re Skinner, No. 05-23-00930-CV, 2023 WL 

6618295, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Relator’s petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See In re Backusy, No. 05-23-
 –2– 

00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 14, 2023, orig. 

proceeding) (mem. op.). 

For example, it is relator’s burden to provide the Court with a sufficient record 

to show his entitlement to mandamus relief. Skinner, 2023 WL 6618295, at *1; see 

also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (requiring a relator to file “a certified or sworn 

copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter 

complained of”); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring a relator to file “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”). Although relator filed two documents 

with this petition, neither is a sworn or certified copy as required by the rules. 

Relator also failed to certify he has reviewed the petition and concluded that 

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

or record. TEX.R. APP. P. 52.3(j). Relator signed a verification wherein he stated that 

his petition for writ of mandamus “is true and correct to the best of [his] knowledge,” 

but this verification does not satisfy the requirements of rule 52.3(j). In re Skinner, 

No. 05-23-01077-CV, 2023 WL 8230683, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 28, 2023, 

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Without a certified petition and authenticated record, 

relator has failed to carry his burden to provide a sufficient record. Skinner, 2023 

WL 6618295, at *1. 

Further, relator’s petition lacks a statement of facts supported by citations to 

competent evidence included in an appendix or record, and it does not include a 
 –3– 

“clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to 

authorities and to the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g), (h). The petition 

is also styled incorrectly, see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1 (stating a petition must be 

captioned, “In re [name of relator]”), and it is missing the following: a list identifying 

the parties and counsel, a table of contents, an index of authorities, a statement of 

the case, a statement of jurisdiction, and a statement of the issues presented. TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.3(a)–(c), (d)(1)–(3), (e)–(f). 

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

240355F.P05 

/Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE