In Re: Rene King v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 9, 2024
• Docket: 05-24-00188-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed April 9, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00188-CV

IN RE RENE KING, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-2071454

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Breedlove Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Before the Court is relator’s February 21, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus

wherein he asks this Court to compel the trial court to dismiss some or all of the

proceedings in Cause No. F-2071454.

Relator’s status as an inmate does not relieve him of his duty to comply with

the rules of appellate procedure. In re Skinner, No. 05-23-00930-CV, 2023 WL

6618295, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Upon review of relator’s petition, relator fails to meet some of 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. 52.1, 52.3(a)–

(d), 52.3(f)–(k), 52.7(a).

For example, it is relator’s burden to provide the Court with a sufficient record

to show his entitlement to mandamus relief. Skinner, 2023 WL 6618295, at *1; see

also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (requiring a relator to file “a certified or sworn

copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter

complained of”); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring a relator to file “a certified or

sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and

that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). Although relator filed two documents

with this petition, neither is a sworn or certified copy as required by the rules.

Relator also failed to certify he has reviewed the petition and concluded that

every factual statement is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix

or record. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). Without a certified petition and authenticated

record, relator has failed to carry his burden to provide a sufficient record. See In re

Skinner, No. 05-23-01077-CV, 2023 WL 8230683, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov.

28, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Further, relator’s petition lacks a statement of facts supported by citations to

competent evidence included in an appendix or record, and it does not include a

“clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to

authorities and to the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g), (h). The petition

is also missing the following: a list identifying the parties and counsel, a table of

–2– contents, an index of authorities, a statement of the case, and a statement of the issues

presented. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(c), (d)(1)–(3), (f).

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

/Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III 240188F.P05 CHIEF JUSTICE

–3–