DocketNumber： 05-23-00333-CV
Filed Date： 4/13/2023
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 4/19/2023
DENIED and Opinion Filed April 13, 2023 S In the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00333-CV IN RE JEREMY LIEBBE, Relator Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2 Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19-903920-CC2-M MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Carlyle, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Carlyle Relator contends in his April 11, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus that the trial court (1) failed to issue an order of nondisclosure of criminal-history record information pursuant to Texas Government Code § 411.072 and (2) failed to act on relator’s March 28, 2023 motion requesting issuance of the order of nondisclosure. To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that 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). The relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record to show he is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer,827 S.W.2d 833
, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Here, relator’s petition fails to comply with rule 52 in numerous respects. For instance, relator failed to certify that he “has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). Also, although relator included numerous documents in an appendix to his petition, none of the documents are sworn or certified copies as required. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (appendix must contain “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of”), 52.7(a)(1) (requiring relator to file with a petition “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”). The opinion also fails to comply with rules 52.3(e) (Statement of Jurisdiction) and 52.3(g) (Statement of Facts). Because relator’s petition lacks the required certification, and because relator has not met the burden to provide a sufficient record, we deny the petition. /Cory L. Carlyle/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE 230333F.P05 –2–