Opinion issued May 15 , 2009
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________
NO. 01-09-00143-CR
____________
IN RE FRANK ANTHONY FURTADO, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Frank Anthony Furtado, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court compel respondent to rule on his motion for DNA testing in trial court cause number 699972. We deny the petition.
First, relator’s petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. For example, it does not include an appendix that contains a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of, and does not certify that a copy was served on respondent. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5, 52.3(j).
Although we generously read a pro se litigant’s petition in an original proceeding, that we will hold “the relator to the same procedural standards we apply to other litigants.” Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). In this case, relator has not provided us with a record that shows that his motion for DNA testing was filed in the 230th District Court or that he made any request of respondent to perform a nondiscretionary act that respondent refused. See id. at 426. Because Relator has not provided us with a record that shows he filed any motions or otherwise requested relief from respondent, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j).
It is so ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Taft, Bland, and Sharp.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).