IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
SEPTEMBER 11, 2002
______________________________
JUSTIN JAY SHEPHERD,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 44331-A; HON. DAVID GLEASON, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, SJ. (1)
Pending before the court is Justin Jay Shepherd's (appellant) motion for extension of time to file his brief. Accompanying the motion was the brief itself. We grant the motion and file the brief as of the date received. However, we dismiss the appeal for the want of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant was convicted of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit another felony. The punishment assessed by the court did not exceed the terms of the plea bargain. Thereafter, appellant filed a pro se general notice of appeal wherein he stated that he was "ignorant" of the law and "was misrepresented by counsel." Omitted from the notice, however, was either the statement that the court granted permission to appeal, that the substance of the appeal involved matters raised by written motion before trial, or that the appeal "is for jurisdictional defects" as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3). Nor did the appellant's subsequent notice of appeal contain like statements. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001), and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Per Curiam
Do Not Publish.
1.
Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
NO. 07-10-00059-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
MARCH 3, 2010
IN RE KENNETH HICKMAN-BEY, RELATOR
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ORDER
Relator Kenneth Hickman-Bey has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining that the respondent district judge, the Honorable Ron Enns, judge of the 69th District Court of Hartley County, has not ruled on several motions he filed.[1] According to his petition, relator filed the motions in his pending civil case in that court, Cause No. 4249H.[2] In the petition, relator states he has written numerous communications to the court seeking to prosecute this case. Relator attached two documents to the petition. The first is a letter dated October 23, 2009, purportedly from relator to respondent, requesting the hearing of a motion for partial summary judgment. The second is a letter dated August 21, 2008, purportedly from relator to the district clerk, requesting disposition of a motion for summary judgment and the courts attention of a petition for writ of mandamus.
Our consideration of relators petition proceeds no further than review of its form. In important respects, relators petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The petition does not include certification that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence in the appendix or record. Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j). Also, although the 2008 letter to the district clerk bears a file-stamp, neither of the documents attached to the petition are certified or sworn. Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Moreover, the petition does not include sworn copies of the motions relator says are pending. Because of these defects of form, relators petition does not establish even that the matters of which he complains have been brought to Judge Ennss attention. Before mandamus relief may issue, the relator must properly establish that the district court was asked to perform a non-discretionary legal duty and failed or refused to do so. OConnor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). For this reason alone, relators petition must be, and is, denied.
Accompanying relators petition is a motion to suspend Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.3(a)(1)(A) and allow relator to file but one copy of his petition. Relator is a prison inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis. The motion to suspend Rule 9.3(a)(1)(A) is granted to the extent we have accepted for filing the original copy of relators petition and do not require submission of three additional copies as otherwise required.[3]
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
[1] According to relator, the matters awaiting disposition are his motion for non-joinder, motion for teleconference, motion to compel production, petition for writ of mandamus, request for hearing, and motion for partial summary judgment.
[2] See Hickman-Bey v. Tex. Dept of Crim. Justice-C.I.D., No. 07-09-0068-CV, 2009 Tex. App. Lexis 5627 (Tex.App.--Amarillo July 22, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing prior appeal in same case).
[3] Attached to the motion is a certificate of service stating that relator served respondent and counsel for the real parties in interest with a copy of his petition.