Opinion
No. 12-07-00300-CR
Opinion delivered August 22, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Original Proceeding.
Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and HOYLE, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original mandamus proceeding, Harvey Hood alleges that the trial court signed a nunc pro tunc judgment adding a deadly weapon finding to the original judgment of conviction. Hood asserts that there is nothing in the original record or the original judgment about a deadly weapon finding and therefore contends that the trial court abused its discretion in signing the nunc pro tunc judgment. To evaluate Hood's mandamus petition, we must consider what was before the trial court at the time it signed the nunc pro tunc judgment. See Dallas Morning News v. Fifth Court of Appeals , 842 S.W.2d 655, 668 (Tex. 1992). Thus, it is Hood's burden to bring forward an adequate record to show his right to relief. See id . To that end, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require that the following be filed with the petition:
(1) a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator's claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding; and
(2) a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained.TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7. Hood did not file the required record, and we are therefore unable to determine whether he is entitled to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied .