Opinion
06-21-00117-CV
01-19-2022
IN RE HEATHER MARIE TIDWELL
Date Submitted: January 18, 2022
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RALPH K. BURGESS JUSTICE
Heather Marie Tidwell (Relator) has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking this Court to direct the County Court at Law of Fannin County to vacate its July 14, 2021, temporary order in this suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Because we conclude that certain of the documents included in the mandamus appendix are not properly sworn as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we deny the requested relief.
Relator did not file a record with her petition, but instead filed an appendix. As a result, Relator was required to comply with Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. That Rule requires that an appendix must "contain . . . 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). A Rule 52.3(j) certification was included in the filing with this Court, which stated,
I certify that I have reviewed the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandamus and have concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix and record. Appendix 01 is a certified copy of the Clerk's Record in the underlying matter through June 18, 2021. Appendix 09 is a certified copy of the Order Complained of in the underlying matter that was signed on July 14, 2021.
This was the only certification included in Relator's filing. Yet, there are items in the appendix labeled "Florida Court Record excerpts," in which the attempted certification is illegible, and other excerpts that include no certification. The appendix also includes additional documents from Florida that are not properly sworn or certified. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). In addition, not all of the documents attached as the trial court record are certified, and it is unclear whether each uncertified document was filed in the underlying proceeding. Because Relator attempts to use the appendix as a mechanism for attaching what should be included in the mandamus record, she must comply with Rule 52.7(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring relator to file "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").
"'Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,' we must 'strictly enforce[] the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record.'" In re Porter, No. 06-21-00054-CV, 2021 WL 2425251, at *1 (Tex. App.- Texarkana June 15, 2021, orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Morehead, No. 06-21-00025-CV, 2021 WL 1652064, at *2 (Tex. App.-Texarkana Apr. 28, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (quoting In re Smith, No. 05-19-00268-CV, 2019 WL 1305970, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Mar 22, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.))). "It is the relator's burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief." In re Long, 607 S.W.3d 443, 446 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2020, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Henderson, No. 06-15-00034-CR, 2015 WL 13522812, at *2 (Tex. App.-Texarkana Mar. 10, 2015, orig. proceeding)); see Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1).
Because Relator did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.