Court Opinion

ID: 9838025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-03 08:10:26.038061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.783334
License: Public Domain

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed
August 29, 2023.

                                          In The

                      Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                   NO. 14-23-00227-CR

                   IN RE RYAN JIVARO WHITAKER, Relator

                            ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
                              WRIT OF MANDAMUS
                                 230th District Court
                               Harris County, Texas
                           Trial Court Cause No. 1463151

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

       On April 10, 2023, relator Ryan Jivaro Whitaker filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R.
App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Chris
Morton, presiding judge of the 230th District Court of Harris County, to “rule
and/or pass judgment on each of his properly filed post-conviction pro se motions
pending before the trial court . . . .”
      On July 27, we notified relator of procedural deficiencies with his petition
for a writ of mandamus:

             Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of
      Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j); 52.7(a). Relator
      has not certified that he “has reviewed the petition and concluded that
      every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent
      evidence included in the appendix or record.” See Tex. R. App. P.
      52.3(j). Additionally, relator did not include with his 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” and “a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant
      testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits
      offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in
      connection with the matter complained.” See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a).
      An unsworn declaration is an alternate method that relator may use for
      certification. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 132.001.

We also notified relator that “his petition for writ of mandamus will be
dismissed unless relator supplements and/or amends his petition to addresses
the issues identified above on or before August 27, 2023.”

      On August 23, 2023, relator filed a timely amended petition that included an
unsworn declaration authenticating the documents attached to his petition, but
relator neither certified that he “has reviewed the petition and concluded that every
factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the
appendix or record” (see Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j)), nor included “a properly
authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding,
including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was
adduced in connection with the matter complained” (see Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)).

                                         2
      Because there is not a proper record, we dismiss the petition for want of
prosecution without ruling on the merits of relator’s petition and without prejudice
to relator filing a new original proceeding that complies with the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See generally In re Kholaif, 624 S.W.3d 228 (order), mand.
dism’d, 615 S.W.3d 369 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020) (orig.
proceeding).

                                      PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Spain, Hassan, and Poissant.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                         3