In re Anthony W. Norman Jr.--Appeal from 269th District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued January 27, 2011 In The Court of Appeals For the First District of Texas ____________ NO. 01-10-00915-CV ____________ IN RE ANTHONY W. NORMAN, JR., Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Anthony W. Norman, Jr., filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Judge Dan Hinde of the 269th District Court to sign an order granting expunction.1 1 The Honorable Dan Hinde, judge of the 269th District Court of Harris County, Texas. The underlying lawsuit is Ex parte Anthony W. Norman, Jr., No. 2009-59663 (269th Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex.). 1 We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Relator has failed to include with his petition a certification that he has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App. Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) ( However, the relator must comply with the current requirement of rule 52.3(j) by certifying the factual statements contained in the petition are supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. The relators have not done this, and, thus, their certification does not meet the requirement of rule 52.3(j). ). Relator has also failed to include certified or sworn copies of documents showing the matters of which he complains in the appendix and the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (requiring relator to include, as part of appendix, certified or sworn copy of . . . any other document showing the matter complained of ); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a) (requiring relator to file with petition 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 a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence ). 2 All pending motions are denied as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Massengale. 3
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.
