NO. 07-01-0508-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
JANUARY 4, 2002
______________________________
In re STEVE D. MCNEAL,
Relator
____________________________
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
____________________________
Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.
Steve D. McNeal petitions the court for a writ of mandamus. In particular, we are
asked to order various attorneys who allegedly represented him in a criminal matter “to
submit copies of all items in their files pretaining [sic] to cause no: 99-431348 to the
appellant Steve D. McNeal.” This is supposedly necessary to enable him to “present
credible evidence in support of his appeal . . .” as well as to secure him equal protection
and his “right to present adequate, effective, and meaningful claim [sic] to this Honorable
Court.” We deny the petition for the following reasons.
The rules of appellate procedure obligate one seeking mandamus to include in his
petition “clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations
to authorities and to the appendix or record.” TEX . R. APP . PROC . 52.3(h). This requires
the petitioner to provide the court with substantive analysis of his legal contentions and
citation to authority supporting those contentions. See Vasquez v. State, 22 S.W.3d 28,
31 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2000, no pet.) (holding that one waives his point by failing to
accompany it with anything more than conclusory allegation); Favaloro v. Commission for
Lawyer Discipline, 13 S.W.3d 831, 839 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2000, no pet.) (stating that the
appellant waived his contention by failing to support it through explanation and citation to
authority). Here, McNeal provides us with no direct legal citation illustrating that we may
issue a writ of mandamus directing his previous attorneys to deliver records to him. Nor
does he cite analogous authority from which one could extrapolate that he is entitled to the
relief sought. Moreover, his mere reference to various federal civil statutes which have
nothing to do with mandamus (e.g. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985) do not fill the void.
Nor did he accompany his allegation that the supposed files are needed to
successfully prosecute an appeal with substantive explanation. Rather, he simply
concludes that within those files is evidence of “harm.” This is of import because while we
may issue a writ of mandamus against an entity other than a judge or court, our authority
to do so is quite limited. Indeed, we may do so only when necessary to enforce our
appellate jurisdiction. TEX . GOV . CODE ANN . 22.221(a); In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181,
182 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.). Here, aside from stating that he would
like the information contained in his attorneys’ files to prosecute an appeal in this court,
what that information is and how his obtaining same is necessary to enforce our appellate
jurisdiction goes unexplained. This is especially problematic when our records indicate
that the appeal to which he alludes involves a criminal case in which he has been
appointed counsel, that counsel has already filed a brief on his behalf, that counsel has
2
not voiced concern about the lack of information necessary to prosecute the appeal, and
McNeal is not entitled to hybrid representation (i.e to file his own brief).1
That McNeal may be acting pro se and be incarcerated matters not. He and those
in his stead are obligated to abide by the pertinent rules of procedure. Holt v. F.F. Enters.,
990 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1998, pet. denied). Accordingly, we deny the
petition for writ of mandamus.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
1
The appeal in question is styled McNeal v. State, No. 07-01-0267-CR and pends in this court.
Moreover, that he allegedly needs the contents of the attorneys’ files to obtain evidence illustrating that he
was “harmed” viz the acts underlying his appeal does not authorize us to act. This is so because our decision
in cause number 07-01-0267-CR can only be based upon the record before us. Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d
707, 712 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). If the information allegedly contained in the files was not before the trial
court and incorporated into the appellate record, then we cannot consider it. On the other hand, if it is part
of the record, then it is already available to McNeal. In either case, issuing mandamus would be a
meaningless act.
3