in Re Antwon Bernard Hamilton ( 2020 )

DENIED and Opinion Filed January 7, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-01458-CV
IN RE ANTWON BERNARD HAMILTON, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 380th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 380-080420-99
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell
Opinion by Justice Molberg
Antwon Bernard Hamilton has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining about
the trial court’s delay in responding to a document he filed styled “Leave for Discovery and
Enforcement of Judgment on the State’s Original Motion” which is connected to a notice the State
filed in the trial court declaring an intent to destroy evidence in relator’s criminal case.1 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). Under this
Court’s precedents, relator’s certification must state substantially what is written in rule 52.3(j).
1
According to the Court’s records, relator was convicted of aggravated sexual assault with two enhancement paragraphs and received a life
sentence. See Hamilton v. State, No. 05-02-00451-CR, 2003 WL 1734999, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 2, 2003, no pet.) (not designated for
publication). Although various items collected during the investigation were tested, no scientific evidence linking relator to the offense was
discovered. Id. at *2. Relator was convicted on victim and witness testimony. Id. Subsequently, the Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of
relator’s motion for post-conviction DNA testing, agreeing with counsel’s Anders brief that the appeal was frivolous and without merit. See
Hamilton v. State, No. 05-06-01273-CR, 2008 WL 217564, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 28, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication).
See In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding). Relator’s
petition does not contain a certification and therefore does not comply with rule 52.3(j). See id.
Furthermore, Relator has not filed a record with his petition. 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, every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief
that was filed in any underlying proceeding, and a transcript of any relevant testimony. TEX. R.
APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a); Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 758–59.
Certified copies may be ordered from the district clerk. Documents become sworn copies
when they are attached to an affidavit or to an unsworn declaration stating under penalty of perjury
that the person making the affidavit or unsworn declaration has personal knowledge that the copies
of the documents attached are correct copies of the originals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §
132.001; Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 759; In re Taylor, 28 S.W.3d 240, 245, (Tex. App.—Waco 2000,
orig. proceeding), disapproved on other grounds by In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163, 166 (Tex. 2003).
Without an authenticated petition and supporting record, relator has not established that
he is entitled to mandamus relief. See Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 758–59. Thus, we deny relator’s
petition for writ of mandamus.
/Ken Molberg//
KEN MOLBERG
JUSTICE
191458f.p05
–2–