In Re: James Bryan Fears v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

DENIED and Opinion Filed February 23, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-00154-CV
IN RE JAMES BRYAN FEARS, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 439th Judicial District Court
Rockwall County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2-21-0769
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Breedlove
Opinion by Justice Molberg
Before the Court is relator’s February 12, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus.
In his petition, relator seeks to compel the district clerk to provide him “a complete
and correct copy of trial documents.”
Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure in numerous respects. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1, 52.2, 52.3(a)–(d),
52.3(f)–(k), 52.7(a). For instance, a petition seeking mandamus relief must include
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). We are bound by this Court’s
precedent requiring exceptionally strict compliance with rule 52.3(j)’s requirements.
In re Stewart, No. 05-19-01338-CV, 2020 WL 401764, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas
Jan. 24, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Relator included an affidavit stating
“that all of the allegations of fact contained in [the petition] are true according to my
belief.” This certification does not satisfy the requirements of rule 52.3(j). See TEX.
R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig.
proceeding).
Additionally, it is the relator’s burden to provide a record sufficient to
establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.
1992) (orig. proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). To meet
this evidentiary burden, the rules of appellate procedure require the relator to file
with the petition certified or sworn copies of documents showing the matter
complained of and every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief
and that was filed in any underlying proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A),
52.7(a)(1); Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 759. Certified copies may be ordered from the
appropriate court clerk. See In re Hamilton, No. 05-19-01458-CV, 2020 WL 64679,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 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 id.; see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
–2–
CODE ANN. § 132.001 (describing requirements for an unsworn declaration and
providing a form jurat for an unsworn declaration by an inmate). Relator’s status as
an inmate does not relieve him of his duty to comply with the rules of appellate
procedure. See In re Lee, No. 05-23-00866-CV, 2023 WL 5767562, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Sept. 7, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Relator failed to file any
documents with his petition that are material to his claim for relief.
Finally, even if relator’s petition were not defective, we question whether we
would have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk as
relator asks. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b); In re Evens, No. 05-19-
01430-CV, 2020 WL 64668, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2020, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.) (“This Court does not have jurisdiction to issue writs of
mandamus against a district clerk unless it is necessary to enforce our own
jurisdiction.”). Because relator’s petition does not meet the requirements for
consideration of mandamus relief, it is not necessary for this Court to address this
jurisdictional question.
Based on the foregoing reasons, we deny relator’s petition for writ of
mandamus.
/Ken Molberg//
240154f.p05 KEN MOLBERG
JUSTICE
–3–