IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-06-00235-CV
No. 10-06-00239-CV
In re Carl Long
Original Proceedings
ORDER
On October 6, 2006, the Clerk of this Court received several documents from Relator Carl Long in the above-referenced original proceedings.
In No. 10-06-239-CV, the Clerk received and filed Long’s “Motion to Show Relator Complies with Order Issued and Exhibit as Proof.” The Court will treat this document as a supplemental record. Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(b).
In No. 10-06-235-CV, the Clerk received, but inadvertently did not file, Long’s “Motion to Submit Exhibits to Support Application for Mandamus and Order Issued by This Court.”[1] The Clerk is ordered to file this document as a supplemental record, and the Court will treat it as such. Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(b).
The Clerk marked as “received” the cover letter accompanying Long’s Affidavit of Indigence and his inmate trust fund account print-out. The Clerk is ordered to file these documents in both No. 10-06-235-CV and No. 10-06-239-CV.
With regard to the above documents, we suspend the rule for proof of service (Tex. R. App. P. 9.5) under these circumstances. See Tex. R. App. P. 2; see also Jones v. State, No. 10-06-00289-CR, slip op. at 3 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 22, 2006, no pet. h.) (Gray, C.J.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication) (suspending proof of service requirement in appeal involving incarcerated, pro se appellant). The Clerk shall mail copies of the above documents to Respondent on the date of this order. Any supplemental responses to the petitions for writ of mandamus shall be filed within fourteen days of the date of this order.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
(Chief Justice Gray dissenting)
Order issued and filed December 20, 2006
Publish
[1] The dissent mischaracterizes a confidential, internal note that discusses not circulating internally Long’s documents that are at issue in this order (his supplemental appendices) until the Respondent has filed responses to the petitions.
,
Appellee
From the 361st District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court # 03-001082-CV361
DISSENTING Opinion
Is a piece of paper that we all know as a “green card” not a return of service because it is not on a form called “return” or “return of service”? The issue here is simple. Can a document be what it is, even if it does not have that label?
Under the facts of this case, I believe the “green card,” having been signed upon its return by the clerk, and which contains all the requirements of a return, when affixed to the citation is a return even if it is not labeled as such.
Thus, the error complained of is not apparent from the face of the record. I would affirm the judgment.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Dissenting opinion delivered and filed April 13, 2005