In re Curtis Williams--Appeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

heading for mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-03-00229-CV
IN RE Curtis WILLIAMS
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Arising from the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2002-CR-8034
Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Paul W. Green, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 2, 2003

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Relator, Curtis Williams, filed a pro se petition for mandamus relief seeking an order for the trial court to set a hearing on his application for habeas corpus. Williams contends the amount of his bail is excessive. The petition does not comply with Rule 52 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it does not contain:

1. an index of authorities arranged alphabetically and indicating the pages of the petition where the authorities are cited (Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(c));

2. a statement of the case (Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(d)), including a concise description of the underlying proceedings (Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(d)(1));

3. a statement of jurisdiction (Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(e));

4. a concise statement of facts with references to the appendix (Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(g));

5. a clear and concise argument with citations to authorities and the appendix (Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(h));

6. an appendix (Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j)), including a certified or sworn copy of the order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of (Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j)(1)(A)) and a certified or sworn copy of every document material to relator's claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding (Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1)).

As an example of the above deficiencies, Williams has not included a copy of the habeas application filed in the trial court or a copy of any fiat, motion or letter calling the trial court's attention to the application or requesting that the application be set for hearing. Williams has not stated the amount of the bail set in the trial court or why he considers it excessive, nor has he explained the charge or charges against him. Further, Williams has not signed or verified his petition for writ of mandamus as required by Tex. R. App. P. 52.3. Although we must liberally construe pro se pleadings, these failures are sufficient to deny relief. See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426-47 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).

Because Williams is not entitled to relief, we deny his petition without prejudice to refiling.

PER CURIAM

Publish