In Re Kenneth D. Anderson v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Court of Appeals

Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-26-00305-CR

In re Kenneth D. Anderson

Original Proceeding

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kenneth D. Anderson, a prison inmate, seeks a mandamus to compel the trial court to provide him with its findings of fact and conclusions of law on Anderson’s application for writ of habeas corpus, if there are any such findings and conclusions. 1 There are numerous procedural problems with the petition, such as no service on the trial court judge as the respondent and the State as the real-party in interest, no certification, no appendix, and no record, as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5; 52.3(j), (k); 52.7. However, we use Rule 2 to dispense with these requirements and proceed to a timely disposition of the petition. See id. 2.

1 Anderson questions whether the trial court could even proceed to a judgment on his application without findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Anderson bears the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a); In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). He has not carried his burden.

Accordingly, Anderson's petition for writ of mandamus, filed on July 29, 2026, is denied.

LEE HARRIS

Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: August 6, 2026 Before Justice Smith, Justice Harris, and Judge Rusek 2 Denied Do Not Publish OT06

2 The Honorable Peter K. Rusek, Judge of the 74th District Court, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.

In re Anderson Page 2