In Re: Gerald Q. Troup v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 4, 2024
• Docket: 05-24-01389-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Denied and Opinion Filed December 4, 2024

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-01389-CR

IN RE GERALD Q. TROUP, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 203rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-18652

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia Before the Court is relator Gerald Q. Troup’s November 26, 2024 petition for

writ of mandamus.

In his petition, relator requests that we compel the trial court to order the

district clerk to provide relator with documents relator requested under the Texas

Public Information Act.1 Relator’s petition does not meet the requirements of Rule

52 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

A relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a record that is

sufficient to show he is entitled to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d

1 TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 552.001–.376. 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Skinner, No. 05-23-00930-CV, 2023

WL 6618295, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

To meet that burden, the relator’s petition must contain, among other things, a

certification stating that the person filing the petition “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). The petition

does not include the required certification. This defect alone provides grounds for

denying relator’s mandamus petition. See In re Integrity Mktg. Grp., LLC, No. 05-

24-00922-CV, 2024 WL 3770377, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 13, 2024, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus relief based solely on lack of rule

52.3(j) certification).

Rule 52 also requires the relator to file with his petition 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). The

relator is further required to file with his petition a record containing (1) “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” and (2) “a properly authenticated

transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any

exhibits offered into evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in

connection with the matter complained.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). The petition

includes two documents, Exhibits A and B. Exhibit A purports to be a copy of a

–2– letter from relator to the district clerk dated June 20, 2024, requesting the district

clerk to “tell me the status of this motion,” i.e., the request for “legal documents

through the Open Records Act”; and Exhibit B purports to be the “Motion for Writ

of Mandamus” he says he filed in the trial court. Neither document is sworn to or

certified. Relator has not provided a statement that no evidence was adduced in this

matter. Without an appendix and record that comply with Rule 52, relator cannot

establish that he filed a request for documents with the district clerk under the Public

Information Act, that the district clerk did not comply with the request, that he filed

a petition for writ of mandamus with the district court, or that the district court failed

to rule on the petition within a reasonable time.

Because relator failed to provide this Court with a certified petition and

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

record establishing a right to mandamus relief. Skinner, 2023 WL 6618295, at *1;

see also In re State ex rel. Best, 616 S.W.3d 594, 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (“To

obtain extraordinary relief, Relator must show that 1) he has no adequate remedy at

law, and 2) what he seeks to compel or prohibit is ministerial, involving no

discretion.”).

Further, relator’s petition 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(h). The petition is also missing the following: a

list identifying the parties and counsel, a table of contents, an index of authorities, a

–3– statement of the case in compliance with Rule 52.3(d), a statement of jurisdiction, a

statement of the issues presented, and a statement of facts supported by citations to

competent evidence included in an appendix or record. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a), (b),

(c), (d)(1)–(3), (e), (f), (g).

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

241389f.p05 /Dennise Garcia// DENNISE GARCIA Do Not Publish JUSTICE TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

–4–