DENIED and Opinion Filed November 2, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-00651-CV
IN RE JOSEPH WAYNE HUNTER, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 265th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F13-56295-R
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Evans
Opinion by Justice Myers
Joseph Wayne Hunter has filed a petition requesting a writ of mandamus to
compel the State to file a response to his motion requesting forensic DNA testing
and to compel the trial court to proceed with a ruling on the motion and on a related
motion to appoint counsel. We dismiss the petition as to the State and deny relief as
to the respondent trial court.
This Court does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a
district attorney unless it is necessary to enforce our own jurisdiction. See TEX.
GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (authorizing court of appeals to issue writs of
mandamus against district and county judges within appellate court’s geographic
jurisdiction or when necessary to enforce appellate court’s jurisdiction); In re Scott,
07-02-00350-CV, 2002 WL 31002023, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 5, 2002,
orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Relator is not complaining about actions in an appeal
pending in this Court and, therefore, we have no jurisdiction to grant mandamus
relief against the State. Scott, 2002 WL 31002023, at *1–2. Accordingly, we dismiss
relator’s petition for writ of mandamus to the extent it requests mandamus relief
against the State.
Turning to relator’s complaint against the respondent trial court, a petition
seeking mandamus relief must contain a certification stating that the relator “has
reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is
supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP.
P. 52.3(j). Relator’s petition certifies under penalty of perjury only that “the
foregoing is correct and true.” Thus the petition does not comply with rule 52.3(j).
See id.; In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig.
proceeding).
Additionally, rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires relator to file an appendix with his
petition that contains “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any
other document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A).
Rule 52.7(a)(1) requires the relator to file with the petition “a certified or sworn copy
of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in
any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1).
–2–
Relator’s appendix contains a partial trial court docket sheet showing he filed
the motions at issue, but it does not contain a copy of the motion for forensic DNA
testing he seeks to have enforced and only a partial copy of the motion seeking
appointment of counsel. Thus, relator’s appendix does not meet the requirements of
rule 52.3(k) and rule 52.7(a).
As the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden of providing the Court
with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer,
827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Without a properly certified
petition backed with a sufficient record, relator cannot show he is entitled to relief.
See Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 758–59.
Accordingly, we deny relief on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
/Lana Myers/
LANA MYERS
JUSTICE
200651F.P05
–3–