In Re Joey Ross Carico v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
• Decided: May 21, 2026
• Docket: 06-26-00098-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00098-CR

IN RE JOEY ROSS CARICO

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joey Ross Carico has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel

the Honorable F. Duncan Thomas, assigned judge for this matter in the 6th Judicial District

Court of Lamar County, Texas, to (1) immediately set his pending application for writ of habeas

corpus and amendment of bond conditions for an evidentiary hearing; (2) issue an Article 11

Order compelling appearance and testimony of five Paris Police Department officers identified in

the motion; and (3) review the G-file of the State’s principal law-enforcement witness and rule

on its disclosure to the defense.

We deny Carico’s petition because he has failed to comply with the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. Among other things, Carico’s petition lacks the required certification that

he “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(k);

see CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 453 n.8 (Tex. 2011) (expressing confidence that the

briefing would be revised to “fully comply with Rule 52 on remand to the court of appeals”); In

re Accident Fund Gen. Ins. Co., 543 S.W.3d 750, 752 (Tex. 2017) (per curiam) (orig.

proceeding) (denying a petition for non-compliance with Rules 52.1, 52.3(e), and 52.7 of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure).

Carico has failed to comply with additional mandatory requirements for relief identified

by Rule 52.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure; namely, he has failed to provide the

identity of the parties and counsel, a table of contents, and a table of authorities. See TEX. R.

2 APP. P. 52.3(b)–(d). Further, the orders included in Carico’s appendix are neither certified nor

sworn. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(l).

“‘Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,’ we must

‘strictly enforce[] the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the

mandamus record.’” In re Long, 607 S.W.3d 443, 445 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020, orig.

proceeding) (alteration in original) (quoting In re Smith, No. 05-19-00268-CV, 2019 WL

1305970, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 22, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)); see TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.3, 52.7.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Carico has failed to comply with the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure and has not met his burden to provide a record sufficient to show

himself entitled to mandamus relief.

We deny Carico’s petition for a writ of mandamus.1

Jeff Rambin Justice

Date Submitted: May 20, 2026 Date Decided: May 21, 2026

Do Not Publish

1 The denial of the petition renders moot all motions and requests attendant to the petition.