in Re Tony Lamar Vann

DENIED and Opinion Filed August 27, 2021
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-00525-CV
IN RE TONY LAMAR VANN, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-02399
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns and Justices Myers and Nowell
Opinion by Justice Nowell
Tony Lamar Vann has filed a petition for writ of mandamus contending the
respondent trial court judge abused her discretion and violated rules of the State
Commission on Judicial Conduct by denying his motion to recuse and issuing rulings
in the underlying case during a Zoom teleconference hearing held on May 24, 2021.
Relator alleges the respondent had voluntarily recused herself in an unrelated case
in which relator is a party, and she is bound by that recusal in the underlying case.
For the following reasons, we deny relief.
Relator must file with his petition a sufficient record to establish his right to
mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding). To create a sufficient record, rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires 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). Rule
52.7(a)(2) requires the relator to file with the petition “a properly authenticated
transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any
exhibits offered into evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in
connection with the matter complained.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(2).
In this case, relator has attached to his petition a copy of a motion requesting
a stay of proceedings. Attached as an exhibit to the motion is a copy of an order of
voluntary recusal signed by the trial court in what appears to be an unrelated case to
which relator is a party. The motion is file stamped, but neither it nor the attached
exhibit are certified or sworn copies as required to authenticate them under the rules
of appellate procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); see also TEX.
CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001; In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Long, 607 S.W.3d 443, 445 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 2020, orig. proceeding); In re Hughes, 607 S.W.3d 136, 138 n.2
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] orig. proceeding).
Additionally, relator complains of actions taken in a hearing, but he has not
provided a copy of the reporter’s record from the hearing to show what transpired
–2–
and whether any testimony was taken. We conclude the record is inadequate for us
to determine the merits of relator’s petition without a transcript showing what the
trial court actually did. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837 (requiring relator to file a
sufficient record).
Because relator has not filed an appendix of supporting documents that are
either certified copies or sworn copies verified with an affidavit or unsworn
declaration, and further failed to file a reporter’s record of the Zoom hearing
describing the alleged actions he challenges, we conclude relator has not met his
burden to show he is entitled to mandamus relief. See Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 759;
Long, 607 S.W.3d at 446.
Accordingly, we deny relief on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
/Erin A. Nowell//
210525f.p05 ERIN A. NOWELL
JUSTICE
–3–