In Re Kendrick Ladell Starling v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00178-CR

IN RE KENDRICK LADELL STARLING

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kendrick Ladell Starling has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking this Court to

compel the Honorable Brad Morin, presiding judge of the 71st Judicial District Court of Harrison

County, Texas, to rule on various motions he claims to have filed. Because Starling failed to

provide us with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief, we deny the

mandamus petition.

I. Standard of Review

In a criminal case, “[m]andamus relief may be granted if a relator shows that: (1) the act

sought to be compelled is purely ministerial, and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law.” In re

McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). To meet the burden

to establish entitlement to mandamus relief, a relator is required to show that the trial court failed

to complete a ministerial act. See In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). An act is considered ministerial “if the relator can show . . . a

clear right to the relief sought.” Bowen v. Carnes, 343 S.W.3d 805, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)

(orig. proceeding) (quoting In re State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Appeals at

Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding)). A clear right to

the requested relief is shown when the facts and circumstances require but “one rational decision

‘under unequivocal, well-settled (i.e., from extant statutory, constitutional, or case law sources),

and clearly controlling legal principles.’” In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d at 122 (quoting

Bowen, 343 S.W.3d at 810). “Mandamus is not available to compel a discretionary act as

2
distinguished from a ministerial act.” In re State ex rel. Holmes v. Denson, 671 S.W.2d 896, 899

(Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (orig. proceeding).

II. Analysis

As relator, Starling bears the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record to

establish his entitlement to mandamus relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.

1992) (orig. proceeding); see also In re Norvell, 610 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“[I]t is fundamental that the court have a

proper record before reaching the merits.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Among those

requirements, a petitioner must attach to the petition “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.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1).

While Starling has attached several documents that he claims were filed in the trial court,

none bear district clerk file-stamps or are certified or sworn copies. “Those seeking the

extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable procedural rules. Chief among

these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete and adequate

record.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig.

proceeding) (footnote omitted) (citations omitted) (citing Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837).

“‘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 Long, 607 S.W.3d 443, 445 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020, orig. proceeding)

3
(alteration in original) (quoting In re Smith, No. 05-19-00268-CV, 2019 WL 1305970, at *1

(Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 22, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)).

Starling has failed to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and has not

met his burden to provide a record sufficient to show himself entitled to mandamus relief. For

that reason, we deny Starling’s petition for mandamus.

Scott E. Stevens
Chief Justice

Date Submitted: November 19, 2025
Date Decided: November 20, 2025

Do Not Publish

4