In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-03-00214-CR
______________________________
BOB HAROLD LEACH, Appellant
Â
V.
Â
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
                                             Â
On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court
Wood County, Texas
Trial Court No. 17,104-2002
                                                Â
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
            Bob Harold Leach pled guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery and asked the trial court to assess punishment. Leach had no negotiated plea agreement with the State. The trial court assessed Leach's punishment at imprisonment for life. In a single issue on appeal, Leach contends the State failed to provide adequate notice of its intent to introduce evidence of an extraneous crime or bad act, and, accordingly, the trial court erred by admitting evidence of that extraneous offense in violation of Article 37.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07 (Vernon Supp. 2004).
            The issue presented in this case is the same as that presented in a companion appeal, Leach v. State, No. 06-03-00211-CR. For the reasons stated in our opinion issued today in that case, we likewise affirm the trial court's judgment in this case.
Â
                                                                                    Josh R. Morriss, III
                                                                                    Chief Justice
Date Submitted:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â July 15, 2004
Date Decided:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â July 21, 2004
Do Not Publish
List"/>
|
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
In The
Court of Appeals
                       Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Â
                                               ______________________________
Â
                                                            No. 06-12-00011-CV
                                               ______________________________
Â
Â
Â
                                                 IN RE: KEITH RUSSELL JUDD
Â
Â
                                                                                                 Â
Â
                                                                                                                           Â
                                                    Original Mandamus Proceeding
Â
                                                                                                 Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
                                         Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
                                             Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
                                                                            Â
                                                                            Â
                                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
Â
           Keith Russell Judd has petitioned this Court for mandamus relief. Judd would have us compel the trial court to issue a default judgment on JuddÂs petition for divorce. We deny JuddÂs requested relief.
           Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law, and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law.  Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839Â40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). It is the relatorÂs burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief.  Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re PilgrimÂs Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198Â99 (Tex. App.ÂTexarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see Tex. R. App. P. 52.3.
           Judd has provided this Court with no documents supporting his request. While he has attached a noncertified copy of the officerÂs return indicating service of process was delivered to the respondent, he has neither provided a certified copy of the motion for default judgment Judd claims to have filed in the trial court, nor of any other filings in the trial court.[1]Â
           We find Judd has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief. We, therefore, deny his petition.
Â
Â
Â
                                                                       Jack Carter
                                                                       Justice
Â
Date Submitted:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â January 23, 2012
Date Decided:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â January 24, 2012
Â
[1]This Court denied a similar request for mandamus relief requested by Judd last year. In re Judd, 06-11-00035-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2501 (Tex. App.ÂTexarkana Apr. 5, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).