In Re: Willie James Chapple Appeal from 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DENIED and Opinion Filed September 23, 2022 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00944-CV IN RE WILLIE JAMES CHAPPLE, Relator Original Proceeding from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-09749 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III Before the Court is relator’s September 22, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus. We deny the petition. Relator’s petition fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in multiple respects. Relator’s petition does not include any of the following as required by rule 52.3: the identity of the parties and counsel; a table of contents; an index of authorities; a statement of the case; a statement of jurisdiction; the issues or points presented; a statement of facts with record references; a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record; and a prayer with a short conclusion that clearly states the nature of the relief sought. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(c), (d)(1)–(3), (e)–(i). As a result, it is not clear what relief relator is seeking from this Court. Further, relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record to show he is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Relator’s petition is not properly certified. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding). Although relator has filed some unauthenticated documents, the petition is not supported by an appendix with certified or sworn copies of documents showing the matter complained of, TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), and relator did not file a record with his petition containing a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in the underlying proceeding, TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1); Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 759. Without a certified petition and authenticated record, relator has not carried his burden. See Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 758–59. Accordingly, we deny the petition. 220944f.p05 /Bill Pedersen, III// BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE –2–
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
