Ex Parte: Tracy Nixon v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 22, 2016
• Docket: 05-16-00979-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Denied and Opinion Filed August 22, 2016

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00979-CV

EX PARTE TRACY NIXON, RELATOR

Original Proceeding from the 301st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-00-14691-T

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang and Brown Opinion by Justice Lang

Before the Court is relator Tracy Nixon’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. On the

record before the Court, we cannot conclude relator is entitled to relief. The record filed by

relator does not include sufficient proof that relator is currently confined or restrained. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(D), 52.7(a). Although the appendix to the petition includes the trial court’s

order for issuance of capias and relator’s unsworn statement that he is confined, neither provide

the proof of present confinement required by rule 52. See, e.g., In re Miller, 05-14-01023-CV,

2014 WL 3882317, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 7, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

(denying petition and holding that website print out from Collin County Sheriff’s Department

insufficient to provide proof of confinement).

1 Moreover, the petition does not provide the Court with a sufficient record under which

the Court could properly review the contempt order. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is not

certified as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, does not include a properly

authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from the proceeding at which the relator was

held in contempt, and is supported by documents that are not authenticated as required by the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1),(2), 52.3(j), 52.3(k)(1)(A).

Because the record in an original proceeding is assembled by the parties, this Court strictly

enforces the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the record.

It is relator’s burden as the party seeking relief to provide the Court with a sufficient

record. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Because he has

not done so here, we must deny the petition without prejudice to filing a properly supported

petition.

/S/ Douglas Lang DOUGLAS LANG JUSTICE