In Re Ronny Gene Smith v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 21, 2023
• Docket: 03-23-00425-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00425-CV

In re Ronny Gene Smith

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Ronny Gene Smith, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of miscellaneous issued related to

his prosecution and conviction. Having reviewed the petition and the record provided, we deny

the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

The petition does not make clear the precise nature of the relief sought or the

person or persons to whom the requested writ should issue. To the extent Smith seeks relief

that is within this Court’s jurisdiction to grant, it is the relator’s burden to properly request

and establish entitlement to such relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.

1992); In re Roberts, No. 03-12-00513-CV, 2012 WL 3629367, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin

Aug. 21, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.); see Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ

of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). “In this

regard, the relator must provide the reviewing court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief.” Roberts, 2012 WL 3629367, a t *1 (citing Walker,

827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008,

orig. proceeding)); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k) (specifying required contents for

appendix), 52.7(a) (requiring relator to file with petition “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”). Smith, however, has not provided this Court with any copies of

his motions or any other documents, let alone file-stamped copies to show that a properly

filed motion is pending before the trial court.

Based on the record that Smith has provided, we conclude that he has failed to

show his entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny his petition for writ of

mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________ Rosa Theofanis, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis

Filed: July 21, 2023