in Re Muamar Asad Sayyed ( 2020 )

DENIED and Opinion Filed March 3, 2020
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-00195-CV
IN RE MUAMAR ASAD SAYYED, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 219th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 380-82405-07
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Reichek
Opinion by Justice Bridges
In this original proceeding, Muamar Asad Sayyed has filed a petition for writ
of mandamus requesting the Court to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for
judgment nunc pro tunc requesting a correction of his time credits. We deny the
petition.
To establish a right to mandamus relief, relator must show 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). To show
he is entitled to mandamus relief compelling the trial court to rule on a motion,
relator must show (1) the trial court had a legal duty to rule on the motion because it
was properly filed and timely presented, (2) relator requested a ruling on the motion,
and (3) the trial court failed or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable
period of time. See In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Carter, No. 05-18-00296-CV, 2018 WL 1417409, at
*1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 22, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
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). To carry his burden,
relator must provide a record to the Court that supports his claim and shows he is
entitled to relief. Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires the relator to file an appendix with his
petition that contains “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any
other document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A).
Rule 52.7(a)(1) requires the relator to file with the petition “a certified or sworn copy
of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in
any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1).
Although relator has attached copies of documents to his petition, his
documents are not certified or sworn copies and thus not properly authenticated
under the rules of appellate procedure. To constitute a “sworn copy” within the
meaning of the rules, a document must be attached to an affidavit or to an unsworn
declaration conforming to section 132.001 of the Texas Government Code. See TEX.
GOV’T CODE ANN. § 132.001; In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2008, orig. proceeding); In re Taylor, 28 S.W.3d 240, 245, (Tex. App.—Waco 2000,
–2–
orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), disapproved on other grounds by In re Z.L.T., 124
S.W.3d 163, 166 (Tex. 2003). The affidavit or unsworn declaration must state
directly and unequivocally, under penalty of perjury, that the affiant has personal
knowledge that the documents attached to the affidavit or unsworn declaration are
correct copies of the originals. See Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 759.
Without a properly authenticated appendix containing certified or sworn
copies of documents, we conclude relator has not established he is entitled to
mandamus relief. See id. Therefore, we deny relator’s petition.
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
200195F.P05
–3–