DENIED and Opinion Filed June 10, 2021
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-00372-CV
No. 05-21-00412-CV
No. 05-21-00413-CV
No 05-21-00414-CV
IN RE DRALON DURAN PATTERSON, Relator
Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 5
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F19-75183-PL,
F19-75218-PL, F19-25779-QL & F19-40572-PL
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle
Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness
In this original proceeding, Dralon Duran Patterson has filed a petition for
writ of mandamus requesting that the trial court be compelled to grant him a speedy
trial and discharge him from his pending charges.
Relator’s petition does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in
that it lacks (1) a certification stating that 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;” (2) an appendix containing certified
or sworn copies of the documents relevant to his claims including copies of material
documents that were filed in the underlying proceeding; and (3) either a properly
authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony or a statement that no testimony
has been given on the matter. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j), 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a).
The Court cannot grant mandamus relief on a petition with these deficiencies. See
In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758–59 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding);
see also In re Hughes, 607 S.W.3d 136, 137 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] orig.
proceeding) (dismissing case for deficiencies in mandamus petition).
Moreover, even if relator filed a petition that complies with the rules of
appellate procedure, he would not be entitled to mandamus relief. The Court may
grant mandamus relief if the relator shows he has no adequate legal remedy to
address the alleged harm, and the relator seeks to compel the trial court to perform a
ministerial act that does not involve a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel.
Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals of Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Because relator may raise a failure to
grant a speedy trial as an issue on appeal, he has an adequate legal remedy and is not
entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing Smith v. Gohmert, 962 S.W.2d 590, 593
(Tex. Crim. App. 1998)); see also In re Kirkwood, No. 09-08-00439-CV, 2008 WL
4661238, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 22, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.
per curiam) (denying mandamus petition seeking in part to compel trial court to set
case for trial).
–2–
Because relator has not shown he is entitled to relief, we deny the petition for
writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
/Robbie Partida-Kipness/
ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS
JUSTICE
210372F.P05
–3–