Court Opinion

ID: 9403424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 06:09:53.622803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:06.976822
License: Public Domain

DENY and Opinion Filed June 14, 2023

                                      In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00489-CV

                          IN RE NEIL NOBLE, Relator

          Original Proceeding from the County Criminal Court No. 4
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. F18-45998-K

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel
                            Opinion by Justice Miskel
      Relator’s May 22, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus seeks relief from the

trial court’s order denying his motion to enter judgment for credit for time served.

We deny the petition.

      To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must

show that the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy

at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig.

proceeding). Relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record

to show he is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992)

(orig. proceeding).
      Here, relator has failed to provide sworn or certified copies of every document

material to his claim for relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1) (stating an appendix

must contain “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other

document showing the matter complained of”), 52.7(a)(1) (requiring a relator to file

with a 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”). Although

relator included an unsworn “TRAP Rule 52 Certification” stating that he

“certif[ies]” and “swear[s]” that all court documents are certified copies and that the

other documents are true and exact copies of the original documents, it is insufficient

to meet Rule 52’s requirements. See In re Lancaster, No. 05-23-00381-CV, 2020

WL 3267865, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 5, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

(attorney’s unsworn declaration wherein she declared that the facts stated in the

declaration were true and correct did not invoke penalty of perjury).

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

230489f.p05                                 /Emily Miskel/
                                            EMILY MISKEL
                                            JUSTICE

                                         –2–