in Re Harvey Cathcart ( 2019 )

DISMISSED and Opinion Filed October 21, 2019
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-01194-CV
IN RE HARVEY CATHCART, Relator
Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F14-76880-K
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Whitehill, Partida-Kipness, and Pedersen, III
Opinion by Justice Whitehill
In this original proceeding, relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the
trial court to change its ruling on a motion for nunc pro tunc judgment to grant him additional time
credit. We deny relief.
A petition seeking mandamus relief must contain a certification stating that the relator “has
reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by
competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). Relator’s petition
does not contain any type of certification or inmate declaration verifying the truth of the allegations
in the petition. Thus, relator’s certification does not comply with rule 52.3(j). See id.; In re Butler,
270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding).
Furthermore, to establish a right to mandamus relief, relator must show that the trial court
violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391
S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). As the party seeking relief, the relator
has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to
mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Rules
52.3 and 52.7 require the relator to provide “a certified or sworn copy” of any order complained
of, any other document showing the matter complained of, and every document that is material to
the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P.
52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 758–59.
Relator has attached a copy of what appears to be a TDC printout to his petition. The
printout is not a certified or sworn copy. There are no certified or sworn copies of the motion
relator allegedly filed, the trial court’s order on the motion, the trial court’s judgment, or any other
documents that would support relator’s claim to additional time credit.
Without an authenticated petition and a proper record of supporting documentation, relator
cannot establish the trial court has violated a ministerial duty by failing to grant his motion for
nunc pro tunc judgment. We conclude relator is not entitled to mandamus relief. Butler, 270
S.W.3d at 759.
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a)
(the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).
/Bill Whitehill/
BILL WHITEHILL
JUSTICE
191194F.P05
–2–