Deny and Opinion Filed August 7, 2014
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00957-CV
IN RE KERRY TIPPS, Relator
Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F99-00280-QK
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices FitzGerald, Francis, and Lewis
Opinion by Justice FitzGerald
Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial
court to rule on his motion for forensic DNA testing. The facts and issues are well known to the
parties, so we do not recount them here. Relator’s petition is not properly supported and fails to
comply with the rules of appellate procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j), (k); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7.
“Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable procedural
rules. Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete
and adequate record.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011,
orig. proceeding). Although the claims pleaded in pro se inmate petitions should be liberally
construed, the same procedural standards apply to inmates at to other litigants. Barnes v. State,
832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ). If a pro se litigant is not
required to comply with the applicable rules of procedure, he would be given an unfair advantage
over a litigant who is represented by counsel. Holt v. F.F. Enterprises, 990 S.W.2d 756, 759
(Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. denied). There cannot be two sets of procedural rules, one for
litigants with counsel and the other for litigants representing themselves. Mansfield State Bank
v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). Because the record before the court does not
establish that relator is entitled to relief, we DENY the petition. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8.
140957F.P05
/Kerry P. FitzGerald/
KERRY P. FITZGERALD
JUSTICE
–2–