NO. 07-11-00380-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL B 

OCTOBER 18, 2011 

IN RE ALLEN A. NEWSOME, RELATOR 

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

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

Relator, Allen A. Newsome, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting 

this Court direct this Court, the State, or his appointed appellate attorney to provide him 

a copy of the record of his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child so that he 

can prepare an application for writ of habeas corpus under Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure article 11.07. This Court has previously affirmed appellant’s conviction for 

the aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Newsome v. State, No. 07-08-0217-CR, 

2009 Tex.App. LEXIS 9402, at *15 (Tex.App.—Amarillo Dec. 10, 2009, no pet.) (not 

designated for publication). We deny the petition. 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.31 identifies the requirements of a petition 

for writ of mandamus filed in this Court. Newsome has failed to comply with these 

 1

Further citation of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure will be by reference to 

ARule __.@
2 

requirements. Rule 52.3(a) requires that a petition must include a complete list of all 

parties and the names and addresses of their counsel. Newsome does not include any 

such list. Newsome directs his complaint regarding failure to provide copies of records 

against “the Court or State or his appointed attorney.” It appears that the Court he 

refers to is this Court and that his reference to his appointed attorney refers to his 

appellate counsel as opposed to trial counsel. Under any circumstance, Newsome has 

not provided a clear identification of all parties and the addresses of their counsel. Rule 

52.3(b) requires that the petition include a table of contents with references to the pages 

of the petition and an indication of the subject matter of each issue or point raised in the 

petition. Newsome’s petition includes no table of contents. Rule 52.3(c) requires that a 

petition include an index of authorities in which all authorities cited in the petition are 

arranged alphabetically and the page(s) upon which the authorities are cited is 

indicated. Newsome=s petition includes no index of authorities. Rule 52.3(d) requires a 

statement of the case that includes a concise description of the nature of the underlying 

proceeding. Newsome=s petition does not contain a statement of the case, and does 

not include a concise description of the nature of the underlying proceeding. Rule 

52.3(e) requires the petition include a statement regarding the basis of this Court’s 

jurisdiction. Newsome’s petition does not include a jurisdictional statement. Rule 

52.3(f) requires the petition include a concise statement of all issues or points presented 

for relief. Newsome’s petition includes no such statement. Rule 52.3(g) requires the 

petition include a statement of facts supported by citation to competent evidence 

included in the appendix or record. Newsome’s petition does not include a statement of 

facts. Rule 52.3(h) requires a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, 
3 

with appropriate citations to authorities. Newsome’s argument is not clear nor does it 

identify any authority that would authorize the relief sought. Rule 52.3(i) requires the 

petition include a short conclusion that clearly states the nature of the relief sought. 

While not contained within a conclusion, Newsome’s petition does clearly state the 

nature of the relief sought. However, as will be addressed below, Newsome is not 

entitled to the relief that he seeks by this petition. Finally, Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires 

that the appendix to the petition include a certified or sworn copy of any order 

complained of, or other document showing the matter complained of. Newsome has not 

included an appendix to his petition. As each of these items is required in a petition for 

writ of mandamus and Newsome has failed to comply with these requirements, we may 

not grant the relief that he requests. 

Additionally, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5 requires that, at or before 

the time that a document is filed with this Court, a copy of the document must be served 

on all parties to the proceeding. Newsome’s petition does not include a certificate of 

service or otherwise establish that any purported parties to this proceeding were served 

with Newsome’s petition. 

Finally, in the interest of judicial economy, Newsome’s petition requests that this 

Court direct “the Court or State or his appointed attorney” to provide him copies of the 

record from his criminal appeal so that Newsome can prepare a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus. Although an indigent defendant has a constitutional right to a free 

appellate record in a first appeal of right, see Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227, 

92 S.Ct. 431, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971), Newsome’s first appeal of right has already 
4 

occurred. Conversely, an indigent criminal defendant is not entitled -- either as a matter 

of equal protection or due process -- to a free transcription of prior proceedings for use 

in pursuing post-conviction habeas corpus relief. See United States v. MacCollom, 426 

U.S. 317, 322-24, 96 S.Ct. 2086, 48 L.Ed.2d 666, (1976). As such, Newsome is not 

entitled to the relief that he seeks by this petition. 

For the foregoing reasons, we deny Newsome’s petition. 

 Mackey K. Hancock 

 Justice