Court Opinion

ID: 9365420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 10:09:05.508922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:45.538134
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                     NO. 03-22-00717-CV

                                     In re Irwin Pentland

                    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

              Relator Irwin Pentland, an indigent inmate appearing pro se, has filed a petition

for writ of mandamus seeking to have this Court order the Travis County district courts to “give

consideration to his properly made pleadings and to do so timely.” Relator did not file a record

with his petition, or with his prior petition of which he requests we take judicial notice, but

instead filed an appendix with each petition. Cf. Tex. R. App. P. 52.7 (requiring relator to file

record and listing its required contents); see also id. R. 52.3(k) (requiring relator to include

appendix with petition and listing its required contents). Because relator attempts to use the

appendix as a mechanism for attaching what should be included in the mandamus record, he

must comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(1). See id. R. 52.7(a)(1), (2)

(requiring 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” and “a properly

authenticated transcript” of relevant testimony and exhibits from underlying proceeding or “a

statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained”); In re

Tidwell, No. 06-21-00117-CV, 2022 WL 163815, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 19, 2022,

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
               Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties, we

must strictly enforce the authentication requirements of Rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the

mandamus record. See Tidwell, 2022 WL 163815, at *1; In re Smith, No. 05-19-00268-CV,

2019 WL 1305970, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 22, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

While some of the documents in relator’s appendix are file-stamped, the September 17, 2022

letter on which he relies for relief—which letter requests a hearing on his enforcement action and

the issuance of a subpoena in support of the enforcement hearing—is not file-stamped, certified,

or sworn. Additionally, relator has neither filed a properly authenticated hearing transcript nor

represented that no relevant testimony was adduced in connection with this matter. Relator has

thus not filed a record in compliance with Rule 52.7. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a). It is the

relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus

relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Smith,

No. 03-14-00478-CV, 2014 WL 4079922, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 13, 2014, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.). Because relator did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure in the ways noted above, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus without

prejudice to his refiling a petition in compliance with the applicable rules.      Tex. R. App.

P. 52.7(a)(1), 52.8(a).

                                             __________________________________________
                                             Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Kelly, and Smith

Filed: January 19, 2023

                                                2