In Re: Patrick Deon Howard v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 15, 2024
Docket05-24-00777-CV
StatusPublished

This text of In Re: Patrick Deon Howard v. the State of Texas (In Re: Patrick Deon Howard 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.

Bluebook
In Re: Patrick Deon Howard v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed July 15, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00777-CV

IN RE PATRICK DEON HOWARD, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F96-17437

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Molberg Relator was convicted of murder and assessed a life sentence and a $10,000

fine. This Court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal in 1999. See Howard v.

State, No. 05-96-01917-CR, 1999 WL 233432, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 22,

1999, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). Before the Court is relator’s June

26, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus. Relator, who is proceeding pro se, asks this

Court to compel the trial court to rule on a motion for forensic DNA testing relator

contends he filed on January 18, 2024.

Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. Relator’s petition is not supported by a sworn or certified record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). And relator failed to identify the correct

respondent.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(d)(2); In re Read, No. 05-22-01247-CV, 2022

WL 17828925, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 21, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem.

op.) (denying mandamus petition on grounds relator failed to identify the correct

respondent).

Accordingly, because relator’s petition does not meet the requirements of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief, we deny

relator’s petition. See In re Jones, No. 05-23-00492-CV, No. 05-23-00493-CV, 2023

WL 4101440, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 21, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

/Ken Molberg/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE 240777F.P05

1 An appellate court has the discretion to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts that are matters of public record. Read, 2022 WL 17828925, at *1 n.1. Relator refers to the Honorable John C. Creuzot sitting in Criminal District Court No. 4. We judicially notice that Judge Creuzot is the former presiding judge of Criminal District Court No. 4 of Dallas County and is currently serving as the Dallas County Criminal District Attorney. We further judicially notice that Judge Dominique Collins currently presides over Criminal District Court No. 4 in Dallas County. –2–

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Patrick Deon Howard v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-patrick-deon-howard-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.