In Re: Joshua Skinner v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 16, 2024
• Docket: 05-24-00951-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed August 16, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00951-CV

IN RE JOSHUA SKINNER, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F15-20176

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Smith Before the Court is relator’s August 13, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus.

Relator asks this Court to compel Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to

deliver to relator notification of the trial court’s denial of relator’s motion for post-

conviction DNA testing and to notify this Court of relator’s notice of appeal from

the denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing.

Relator bears the burden to provide the Court with a record that is sufficient

to show his entitlement to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837

(Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). To meet this burden, rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires the

relator to file an appendix with his petition 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). Rule 52.7(a)(1) requires the relator to file with

the petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the

relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.7(a)(1). Relator, however, did not file an appendix or record to support his

petition. Thus, relator failed to meet his burden to provide a sufficient record, and

his petition does not meet the requirements for consideration of mandamus relief.

See In re Backusy, No. 05-23-00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas July 14, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition.

Also before the Court is relator’s motion to file an original copy only of his

application for writ of mandamus. The motion is denied as moot.

/Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE 240951F.P05

–2–