Court Opinion

ID: 9401790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 06:08:32.809542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.250047
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed June 12, 2023

                                     S  In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 No. 05-23-00546-CV

                     IN RE GENTRY S. LEONARD, Relator

          Original Proceeding from the County Criminal Court No. 2
                            Dallas County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. M2316874

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before Justices Reichek, Smith, and Kennedy
                             Opinion by Justice Reichek
      Before the Court is relator’s June 1, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus

wherein relator seeks relief from a bond reduction order that denied his request for

a personal bond, which he claims is required under article 17.151 of the Texas Code

of Criminal Procedure.

      Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure in numerous respects. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(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). Relator failed to certify his petition.
      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 a 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). Certified copies may be

ordered from the appropriate court clerk. See In re Hamilton, No. 05-19-01458-CV,

2020 WL 64679, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem.

op.). Documents become sworn copies when they are attached to an affidavit or to

an unsworn declaration stating under penalty of perjury that the person making the

affidavit or unsworn declaration has personal knowledge that the copies of the

documents attached are correct copies of the originals. See id.; see also TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001. The documents contained in relator’s appendix

and record are neither certified nor sworn copies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A),

52.7(a)(1).

      Finally, we note that relator has filed his mandamus petition pro se, but his

record indicates that he has court appointed counsel in the underlying criminal

matter. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. Robinson v.

State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Because relator’s complaint in

his mandamus petition arises from the underlying criminal matter, relator must look

to his appointed counsel for representation in this original proceeding. See In re Bice,

                                          –2–
No. 12-12-00038-CR, 2012 WL 2033131, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 6, 2012,

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Wright, No. 05-08-00072-CV, 2008 WL 376162,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 13, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Watson,

No. 07–08–00232–CV, 2008 WL 2583003, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 30,

2008, orig. proceeding).

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

                                         /Amanda L. Reichek/
                                         AMANDA L. REICHEK
                                         JUSTICE

230546F.P05

                                       –3–