In Re: Rene King v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

DENIED and Opinion Filed April 11, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-00289-CV
IN RE RENE KING, Relator
Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 5
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-9100422
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel
Opinion by Justice Miskel
Before the Court is relator’s March 11, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus
wherein he asks this Court to compel the trial court to dismiss parole revocation
proceedings purportedly pending in Cause No. F-9100422.
Relator’s status as an inmate does not relieve him of his duty to comply with
the rules of appellate procedure. In re Skinner, No. 05-23-00930-CV, 2023 WL
6618295, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Upon review, relator’s petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See In re Backusy,
No. 05-23-00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 14, 2023,
orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1, 52.3(a)–(d), 52.3(f)–(k),
52.7(a).
For example, it is relator’s burden to provide the Court with a sufficient record
to show his entitlement to mandamus relief. Skinner, 2023 WL 6618295, at *1; see
also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (requiring a relator to file “a certified or sworn
copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter
complained of”); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring a relator to file “a certified or
sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and
that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). Although relator filed two documents
with this petition, neither is a sworn or certified copy as required by the rules.
Relator also failed to certify he has reviewed the petition and concluded that
every factual statement is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix
or record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). Without a certified petition and authenticated
record, relator has failed to carry his burden to provide a sufficient record. See In re
Skinner, No. 05-23-01077-CV, 2023 WL 8230683, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov.
28, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Further, relator’s petition lacks a statement of facts supported by citations to
competent evidence included in an appendix or record, and it does not include a
“clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to
authorities and to the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g), (h). The petition
is also missing the following: a list identifying the parties and counsel, a table of
–2–
contents, an index of authorities, a statement of the case, and a statement of the issues
presented. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(c), (d)(1)–(3), (f).
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
/Emily Miskel/
240289f.p05 EMILY MISKEL
JUSTICE
–3–