in Re: Danny Silvers

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 9, 2023
• Docket: 05-22-01371-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENY and Opinion Filed January 9, 2023

S In the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01371-CV

IN RE DANNY SILVERS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17-14132

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Carlyle, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Carlyle Relator Danny Silvers seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to

rule on his motions for a free trial transcript.

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

Procedure. It lacks a correct case style, such as In re Danny Silvers; a complete list

of all parties, names of all counsel appearing in the trial or appellate courts, their

firm or office name at the time of the appearance, and the mailing address, telephone

number, and email address of any counsel that is presently appearing before the

court; a table of contents; an alphabetical index of the authorities cited in the petition;

a statement of the case containing all items required by rule 52.3(d); a list of issues

presented; and a certification that relator has reviewed the petition and concluded every factual statement in it is supported by competent evidence included in the

appendix or record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1, 52.3(a)–(d), (f), (j)–(k), 52.7; In re

Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding).

A relator must also file a sufficient record establishing his right to a writ of

mandamus. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

Rule 52.3(k) requires relator to file an appendix 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). Relator’s appendix is not sworn. To

qualify as sworn copies, relator must submit an affidavit or an unsworn declaration

that conforms with section 132.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

In re Holland, No. 05-22-01361-CV, 2022 WL 18006863, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas

Dec. 30, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE.

§ 132.001; Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 759. An inmate’s unsworn declaration must state

under penalty of perjury that the documents are true and correct copies of the

originals. Holland, 2022 WL 18006863, at *1. Because relator has not submitted an

adequate record, we are unable to conduct a meaningful review of his claims. See In

re Wilson, No. 05-22-01047-CV, 2022 WL 16706977, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov.

4, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

–2– We therefore deny relator’s petition.

/Cory L. Carlyle/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE

221371F.P05

–3–