Court Opinion

ID: 9395119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 06:09:10.908037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:05.482320
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed May 10, 2023

                                     S  In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-23-00268-CV

                     IN RE JAMES ATCHLEY, JR., Relator

          Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 5
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. F20-55447-L

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                            Opinion by Justice Goldstein
      In this original proceeding, James Atchley, Jr. petitions the Court for a writ of

mandamus to compel the trial court and/or its officers, administrators, or clerks to

send a teletype to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Detainers Department

releasing a Dallas County detainer against him. Relator contends Dallas County

should lift the detainer against him because Dallas County dismissed its charge

against him after he was convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison for an offense

in Ellis County. Relator claims the outdated detainer affects his eligibility for parole,

prison employment, and educational opportunities.

      Mandamus is available only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the

violation of a duty imposed by law for which there is no adequate legal remedy.
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Relator bears

the burden to provide the Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to

mandamus relief. Id. at 837.

      To meet his burden, relator must file a record or appendix to his petition that

contains certified or sworn copies of all relevant orders and material documents that

show the matter complained of or that were filed in the underlying proceeding. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Relator must certify that he has reviewed

the petition and concluded that all factual statements within it are supported by

competent evidence in the appendix or record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j).

      Relator has not met his burden. Relator’s petition is not certified and his record

is not properly authenticated and does not contain material documents necessary to

support his claim.

      The record consists of unsworn, uncertified copies of documents purporting

to show that Dallas County dismissed its case against relator and a prison official

has refused to upgrade relator’s opportunities while the detainer is in place. Relator

presents no documents showing he has notified the trial court of the need to send the

teletype to prison officials or that he has requested such a transmission. At best, he

presents a cryptic statement in his uncertified petition alleging that he and his family

“have constantly and continuously shown due diligence” in trying to get the detainer

lifted. Without authenticated documents showing that relator has requested

transmission of the teletype, and the trial court has a duty to send it which it has

                                          –2–
failed or refused to perform, relator cannot show the trial court has abused its

discretion or that he lacks an adequate legal remedy.

      Finally, we note that to the extent relator is requesting, or needs, mandamus

relief against the district clerk, we do not have the power to issue a writ of mandamus

directed at the district clerk unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See

TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(a), (b); In re Shugart, 528 S.W.3d 794, 796 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2017, orig. proceeding). Nothing in the mandamus record shows

mandamus is required to enforce our jurisdiction.

       Without a properly certified petition supported by a complete record of

certified or sworn copies of material documents showing relator has tried to obtain

the transmission of the teletype and that he needs it from the trial court rather than

from the district clerk, relator cannot show he is entitled to mandamus relief. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758–59 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding); Shugart, 528 S.W.3d at 796.

      Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a).

                                            /Bonnie Lee Goldstein/
                                            BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
                                            JUSTICE

230268F.P05

                                         –3–