Court Opinion

ID: 9909360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 07:09:05.483882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:09.567059
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed December 6, 2023

                                    S  In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-23-01189-CV
                                No. 05-23-01190-CV

                IN RE JUAN FRANCISCO TURCIOS, Relator

          Original Proceeding from the 203rd Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-70886, F11-70896

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Carlyle, and Garcia
                             Opinion by Justice Garcia
      Before the Court are relator’s November 27, 2023 petitions for writ of

mandamus. In his petitions, as we construe them, relator contends that the trial court

accepted his plea agreement but violated it by sentencing relator to twenty years

instead of the agreed ten-year sentence. Accordingly, relator seeks specific

performance of his purported plea agreement.

      To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, a 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). It is the relator’s burden to provide a record sufficient to establish his
right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig.

proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1).

      Relator’s petitions do not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure in numerous respects. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(g), 52.3(j)–(k),

52.7(a). For instance, a petition seeking mandamus relief must include a certification

stating that the relator “has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual

statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the

appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). We are bound by this Court’s precedent

requiring exceptionally strict compliance with rule 52.3(j)’s requirements. In re

Stewart, No. 05-19-01338-CV, 2020 WL 401764, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24,

2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Relator included a certification stating that he

“declares under penalty of perjury that the foregoing ‘Petition for Writ of

Mandamus[’] is true and correct and to the best of my knowledge.” This certification

does not satisfy the requirements of rule 52.3(j). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re

Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding).

      Additionally, rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires a relator to file an appendix with his

petition that contains “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any

other document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A).

Rule 52.7(a)(1) requires the relator to file with his petition “a certified or sworn copy

of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in

any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). None of the documents

                                          –2–
included with relator’s petitions are certified or sworn copies. They are also

incomplete in relation to the documents material to his claim for relief.

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

                                           /Dennise Garcia/
                                           DENNISE GARCIA
231189F.P05                                JUSTICE

                                         –3–