From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Vidales

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston
Jun 3, 2009
No. 01-09-00296-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 3, 2009)

Opinion

No. 01-09-00296-CR

Opinion issued June 3, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Panel consists of Justices KEYES, HANKS, and BLAND.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Relator has filed in this Court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. In his petition relator prays that this Court grant his "Writ of Mandamus on D. N. A. testing." We deny the petition. Relator's petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. For example, it does not include a designation of the parties, a complete list of all parties, a table of contents, an index of authorities, an appendix that contains a certified or sworn copy of any order or opinion complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of, and relator does not certify that he has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, 52.3(j), (k). Moreover, relator has not certified that he has served the respondent trial court judge. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5. Although we generously read a pro se litigant's petition in an original proceeding we will hold "the relator to the same procedural standards we apply to other litigants." See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We deny any pending motions as moot.

Relator names as respondent the "presiding Judge of the 230th District Court." Relator has not served the Honorable Belinda Hill, Judge, 230th District Court, Harris County, Texas. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5.

The record before this Court does not includes any documents that reflect thatrelator has filed a motion for D. N. A. testing, that the trial court judge hasrefused to rule on his motion for D. N. A. testing, denied his request for D. N.A. testing, or that he requested of respondent to rule on a motion for D. N. A.testing. Appellant did not attach any documentation to his petition.


Summaries of

In re Vidales

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston
Jun 3, 2009
No. 01-09-00296-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 3, 2009)
Case details for

In re Vidales

Case Details

Full title:IN RE JOE VIDALES, Relator

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston

Date published: Jun 3, 2009

Citations

No. 01-09-00296-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 3, 2009)