Deny and Opinion Filed October 27, 2014
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-01323-CV
IN RE YESHMEL WRIGHT, Relator
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F07-71955-U
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice FitzGerald, and Justice Francis
Opinion by Justice Francis
Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to rule
on his June 16, 2014 motion to obtain a free copy of the reporter’s and clerk’s record and his
August 7, 2014 motion to convene a court of inquiry and require the trial judge to recuse herself
from presiding over the court of inquiry. The petition does not include a mandamus record that
demonstrates these pleadings were filed in the trial court.
“Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable
procedural rules. Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with
a complete and adequate record.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding). Without a proper record the Court cannot determine whether the
motions relator contends he has filed are on file with the trial court and have not been resolved.
The relator’s petition is not certified as required by rule 52.3(j). TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j) (“The
person filing the petition must certify that he or she has reviewed the petition and concluded that
every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the
appendix or record.”). In addition, relator’s appendix is not supported as required by the rules of
appellate procedure because it does not include either a mandamus appendix or record
demonstrating the relator is entitled to relief. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (setting out necessary and
optional contents of appendix), 52.7(a) (setting out required contents of record).
Although the claims pleaded in pro se inmate petitions should be liberally construed, the
same procedural standards apply to inmates as to other litigants. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d
424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). If a pro se litigant is not
required to comply with the applicable rules of procedure, he would be given an unfair advantage
over a litigant who is represented by counsel. Holt v. F.F. Enterprises, 990 S.W.2d 756, 759
(Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. denied). There cannot be two sets of procedural rules, one for
litigants with counsel and the other for litigants representing themselves. Mansfield State Bank
v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978).
To demonstrate entitlement to a writ of mandamus in a criminal case, a relator must
establish that the trial court failed to perform a ministerial duty and there is no other adequate
legal remedy. See In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The
record before us does not permit us to conclude the trial court has failed to perform a ministerial
duty. We DENY the petition.
141323F.P05 /Molly Francis/
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
–2–