NO. 07-04-0461-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
SEPTEMBER 16, 2004
______________________________
In re RONALD H. MARR, JR.,
Relator
_____________________________
Original Proceeding
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Pending before this court is the application of Ronald H. Marr, Jr., for leave to file
a petition for writ of mandamus. As we construe the petition, Marr asks us to order the
District Attorney’s office of Lubbock County, the judge of the 137th District Court of Lubbock
County, and his court-appointed counsel to “hear and present” various motions he has filed
as well as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons which follow, we deny the
petition.
First, rules of procedure obligate one seeking mandamus relief to accompany his
petition with an appendix. TEX . R. APP . P. 52.3(j). The latter must include, among other
things, a “certified or sworn copy of . . . [the] document showing the matter complained of
. . . .” Id. 52.3(j)(1)(A). In this case, the documents showing the matters complained of
would at the very least be copies of the motions and writ of habeas corpus which Marr
alleges were not presented or addressed. Although he refers to those documents as being
attached to his petition, we do not find them and there is no record before us. Thus, relator
not only failed to comply with the rules of appellate procedure regulating mandamus, but
also denied us a record sufficient to enable us to assess his complaints.
Second, to the extent that relator wants us to order an entity or person other than
a trial court to act, we, as an appellate court, have jurisdiction to do so only when
necessary to enforce our jurisdiction over a pending appeal. In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d
181, 182 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). At bar, however, relator
fails to allege that any such appeal is pending. Nor does he argue that the relief requested
is necessary to assure the proper resolution of any appeal that he may have pending.
Thus, and to the extent that it encompasses the district attorney and court-appointed
counsel, we have no jurisdiction over the request for mandamus relief.
Third, and to the extent that relator requests we order the trial court to act upon
various motions or petitions for writs, nothing of record illustrates that the requests were
presented to the trial court or that a trial court refused to act upon them. One asking for
mandamus relief must first show that the trial court was asked to do something and that it
refused the request. O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992).
Accordingly, the application for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Brian Quinn
Justice
2