In Re: Leonard McKeith Hill v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 5, 2024
• Docket: 05-24-00577-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed July 5, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00577-CV No. 05-24-00580-CV No. 05-24-00581-CV

IN RE LEONARD MCKEITH HILL, Relator

Original Proceedings from the Criminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F-2154278, F-2159441, F-2253217

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Reichek In his May 14, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus, relator contends that the

trial court failed to give him jail-time credit on his sentence when the sentence was

imposed pursuant to article 42.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and that

the trial court has since failed or refused to correct the judgment to reflect the

appropriate credit despite relator’s multiple nunc pro tunc motions raising the issue.

Mandamus relief is generally available to address such a failure. See Ex parte

Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (per

curiam). However, we are unable to consider whether it would be appropriate here because relator failed to provide competent evidence supporting his contentions and

his petition otherwise does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure 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.); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(h), 52.3(j),

52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1), 52.7(a)(2).

For example, relator failed to file with his petition an appendix or record

containing certified or sworn copies of the documents showing the matter

complained of and any other documents material to his claim for relief, such as the

judgment and relator’s nunc pro tunc motions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A),

52.7(a)(1); In re Skinner, No. 05-23-00930-CV, 2023 WL 6618295, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Oct. 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (explaining that it is

relator’s burden to provide the Court with a sufficient record to show entitlement to

mandamus relief). Additionally, relator omitted the rule 52.3(j) certification required

for consideration of mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re Stewart, No.

05-19-01338-CV, 2020 WL 401764, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2020, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (explaining that our precedent requires “exceptionally strict

compliance” with rule 52.3(j)).

–2– Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

/Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK 240577F.P05 JUSTICE

–3–