In Re: Remon Rawlins v. the State of Texas

DENIED and Opinion Filed December 2, 2024

In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-01383-CR

IN RE REMON RAWLINS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 199th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 199-82625-2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
Before the Court is relator Remon Rawlins’s November 22, 2024 petition for

writ of mandamus.

In his petition, relator requests various forms of relief in his criminal case

pending in the trial court, including orders compelling: (1) an audit of ex parte

communications between the trial judge and an assistant district attorney, (2) the

Office of the Collin County District Attorney to disclose information concerning the

destruction of evidence, (3) the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of

law concerning the denial of relator’s motion to suppress, and (4) the trial court to
vacate or reconsider the denial of relator’s motion to suppress. We deny the

requested relief.

A relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a record that is

sufficient to show he is entitled to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d

833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Skinner, No. 05-23-00930-CV, 2023

WL 6618295, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

To meet that burden, the relator’s petition must contain, among other things, a

certification stating that the person filing the petition “has reviewed the petition and

concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent

evidence included in the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j).

Here, relator signed a verification stating, “I, Remon Rawlins, declare under

penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct.” This is not a

proper Rule 52.3(j) certification. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re Stewart, No. 05-

19-01338-CV, 2020 WL 401764, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2020, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (“To comply with prior opinions of this Court that interpret

the mandamus rules, a relator should use the exact words of rule 52.3(j) without

deviation in their certification.”). This defect alone provides grounds for denying

relator’s mandamus petition. See In re Integrity Mktg. Grp., LLC, No. 05-24-00922-

CV, 2024 WL 3770377, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 13, 2024, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.) (denying mandamus relief based solely on lack of rule 52.3(j)

certification).

–2–
Rule 52.3 requires the relator to file with his petition an appendix that contains

“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). The relator is

further required to file with his 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 into

evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter

complained.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). Because relator failed to provide this Court

with a certified petition and authenticated record, relator has failed to carry his

burden to provide a sufficient record. Skinner, 2023 WL 6618295, at *1.

Further, relator’s petition does not include a “clear and concise argument for

the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix

or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h). The petition is also missing the following: a list

identifying the parties and counsel, a table of contents, an index of authorities, a

statement of the case in compliance with Rule 52.3(d), a statement of jurisdiction, a

statement of the issues presented, and a statement of facts supported by citations to

competent evidence included in an appendix or record. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a), (b),

(c), (d)(1)–(3), (e), (f), (g).

–3–
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

241383f.p05 /Bill Pedersen, III//
Do Not Publish BILL PEDERSEN, III
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) JUSTICE

–4–