in Re: Skip Lafayette Springer ( 2015 )

Deny and Opinion Filed April 2, 2015
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-00389-CV
No. 05-15-00390-CV
IN RE SKIP LAFAYETTE SPRINGER, Relator
Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F1242039J, No. F1300590J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Stoddart, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Bridges
Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus complaining that the trial court has not
ruled on his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure have specific
requirements for the form and contents of a petition for writ of mandamus. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3.
Relator's petition is not properly certified and does not include an appendix that contains a
certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to his claim for relief. TEX. R. APP. P.
52.3(j), 52.7(a)(1).
Because the mandamus record does not include relator's pleadings in the trial court, the
mandamus record in this case is insufficient to determine whether the relator seeks an order
compelling a ruling on a post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus or a pre-trial petition
for writ of habeas corpus. This distinction is critical because it determines whether the Court has
jurisdiction over the petition for writ of mandamus. Compare Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals,
802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (in granting writ of mandamus
to vacate judgment of conviction, court of appeals usurped exclusive authority of court of
criminal appeals to grant post-conviction relief by writ of habeas corpus) with Padieu v. Court of
Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding)
(when no post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus was pending, court of appeals had
jurisdiction to decide merits of mandamus petition alleging district judge failed to rule on
motion).
We deny the petition.
150389F.P05
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
–2–