Court Opinion

ID: 9960772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 06:12:10.160461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:52.658183
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed April 15, 2024

                                      In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                              No. 05-24-00418-CV

                      IN RE ROMAN J. CANTU, Relator

          Original Proceeding from the 204th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. F-1970908

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia
                         Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
      Before the Court is relator’s April 5, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus.

Relator asks this Court to compel the trial court to rule on a nunc pro tunc motion

relator contends he filed in March 2024.

      Relator’s petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See In re Backusy,

No. 05-23-00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 14, 2023,

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Relator’s status as an inmate does not relieve him of

his duty to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. In re Skinner, No. 05-23-
00930-CV, 2023 WL 6618295, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 11, 2023, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.).

      For example, it is relator’s burden to provide the Court with a sufficient record

to show his entitlement to mandamus relief. Skinner, 2023 WL 6618295, at *1; see

also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (requiring a relator to file “a certified or sworn

copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter

complained of”); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring a 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”). Although relator filed some

documents with his petition, they are not sworn or certified copies as required by the

rules. Relator also failed to certify he has reviewed the petition and concluded that

every factual statement is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix

or record. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). Without a certified petition and authenticated

record, relator has failed to carry his burden to provide a sufficient record. Skinner,

2023 WL 6618295, at *1.

      Further, relator’s petition lacks a statement of facts supported by citations to

competent evidence included in an appendix or record, and it does not include a

“clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to

authorities and to the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g), (h). The petition

is also missing the following: a list identifying the parties and counsel, a table of

contents, an index of authorities, a statement of the case, a statement of jurisdiction,

                                          –2–
and a statement of the issues presented. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(c), (d)(1)–(3), (e)–

(f).

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

                                           /Bill Pedersen, III//
240418f.p05                                BILL PEDERSEN, III
                                           JUSTICE

                                         –3–