Court Opinion

ID: 9960778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 06:12:16.779319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:52.281568
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed April 11, 2024

                                     In The
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                              No. 05-24-00289-CV

                         IN RE RENE KING, Relator

         Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 5
                           Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. F-9100422

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
              Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel
                           Opinion by Justice Miskel
      Before the Court is relator’s March 11, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus

wherein he asks this Court to compel the trial court to dismiss parole revocation

proceedings purportedly pending in Cause No. F-9100422.

      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.).

Upon review, 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. 05-23-00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 14, 2023,
orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1, 52.3(a)–(d), 52.3(f)–(k),

52.7(a).

      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. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). Without a certified petition and authenticated

record, relator has failed to carry his burden to provide a sufficient record. See In re

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

28, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

      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

“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 missing the following: a list identifying the parties and counsel, a table of

                                          –2–
contents, an index of authorities, a statement of the case, and a statement of the issues

presented. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(c), (d)(1)–(3), (f).

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

                                             /Emily Miskel/
240289f.p05                                  EMILY MISKEL
                                             JUSTICE

                                          –3–