In Re: James Atchley, Jr. v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re: James Atchley, Jr. v. the State of Texas (In Re: James Atchley, Jr. v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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 Relator claims the outdated detainer affects his eligibility for parole,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–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re: James Atchley, Jr. v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-james-atchley-jr-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.