In Re: Juan Francisco Turcios v. the State of Texas

DENIED and Opinion Filed December 6, 2023
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-01189-CV
No. 05-23-01190-CV
IN RE JUAN FRANCISCO TURCIOS, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 203rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-70886, F11-70896
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Carlyle, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Garcia
Before the Court are relator’s November 27, 2023 petitions for writ of
mandamus. In his petitions, as we construe them, relator contends that the trial court
accepted his plea agreement but violated it by sentencing relator to twenty years
instead of the agreed ten-year sentence. Accordingly, relator seeks specific
performance of his purported plea agreement.
To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, a 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). 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).
Relator’s petitions do not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure in numerous respects. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(g), 52.3(j)–(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 a certification stating that he
“declares under penalty of perjury that the foregoing ‘Petition for Writ of
Mandamus[’] is true and correct and to the best of my knowledge.” 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, rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires a 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 his 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). None of the documents
–2–
included with relator’s petitions are certified or sworn copies. They are also
incomplete in relation to the documents material to his claim for relief.
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petitions for writ of mandamus.
/Dennise Garcia/
DENNISE GARCIA
231189F.P05 JUSTICE
–3–