IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
MARCH 10, 2003
______________________________
BARRY D. YOUNG, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2001-475909; HONORABLE LARRY B. "RUSTY" LADD, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ., and BOYD, S.J. (1)
Appellant Barry D. Young was convicted of driving while intoxicated, second offense. The trial jury assessed his punishment at confinement in the Lubbock County Jail for 365 days and a $1,000 fine. He timely perfected an appeal from his conviction.
On February 24, 2001, we received appellant's motion to withdraw and dismiss his appeal. His attorney joined in that motion. Because appellant's motion meets all the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and because this court has not delivered its decision before receiving appellant's motion, the motion must be, and is hereby, granted.
Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motions for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.
John T. Boyd
Senior Justice
Do not publish.
1. John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2003).
Format="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267">
NO. 07-10-00516-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
JANUARY 5, 2011
IN RE CLARENCE L. CERF, RELATOR
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Clarence L. Cerf, has filed an Application for a Motion for a Writ of Mandamus requesting this Court to order the district clerk and court reporter to provide him a free copy of the appellate record. We deny the petition.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3[1] identifies the requirements for a petition for writ of mandamus[2] filed in this Court. Cerf has failed to comply with these requirements. Rule 52.3(a) requires that a petition must include a complete list of all parties and the names and addresses of all counsel. Cerf does not identify any of the parties against whom he seeks mandamus relief. In fact, the only identification of what this petition relates to is the identification of the pending criminal appellate cause number and the underlying trial court cause number. Rule 52.3(b) requires that the petition include a table of contents with references to the pages of the petition and an indication of the subject matter of each issue or point raised in the petition. Cerfs petition includes no table of contents. Rule 52.3(c) requires that a petition include an index of authorities in which all authorities cited in the petition are arranged alphabetically and the page(s) upon which the authorities are cited is indicated. Cerf=s petition includes no index of authorities.[3] Rule 52.3(d) requires a statement of the case that includes a concise description of the nature of the underlying proceeding. Cerf=s petition does not contain a statement of the case, and does not include a concise description of the nature of the underlying proceeding.[4] Rule 52.3(e) requires the petition include a statement regarding the basis of this Courts jurisdiction. Cerfs petition simply indicates that he is filing his petition pursuant to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to the [Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure]. Rule 52.3(f) requires the petition include a concise statement of all issues or points presented for relief. Cerfs petition includes no such statement. Rule 52.3(g) requires the petition include a statement of facts supported by citation to competent evidence included in the appendix or record. Cerfs petition does not include a statement of facts. Rule 52.3(h) requires a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities. Cerfs argument is reasonably clear and concise. However, the petition includes no citations to legal authority. Rule 52.3(j) requires the person filing the petition to certify that he has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. Cerf did not certify his petition. Finally, Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires that the appendix to the petition include a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or other document showing the matter complained of. Cerf has not included an appendix to his petition. As each of these items are required in a petition for writ of mandamus and Cerf has failed to comply with these requirements, we may not grant the relief that he requests.
We do note, however, that this Court abated and remanded Cerfs pending criminal appeal to the trial court for further proceedings. One of the issues to be addressed by the trial court on remand is Cerfs entitlement to a free appellate record. Thus, even if Cerfs petition complied with the requirements for a petition for writ of mandamus, it would appear to have been prematurely filed.
As Cerf=s petition for writ of mandamus does not comply with the requirements of Rule 52.3, we deny the petition.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
[1]Further citation of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure will be by reference to ARule __.@
[2] While Cerfs filing is denominated an application for a motion for a writ of mandamus, the body of the document presents a petition for writ of mandamus, and we will construe it as such.
[3] However, we note that Cerfs petition cites no authority, so there is no authority to include in an index of authorities.
[4] While not properly included in a statement of the case, it is clear that Cerf is seeking a free copy of the clerks and reporters records in his pending criminal appeal.