In re Chad Davis--Appeal from 361st District Court of Brazos County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10-00242-CV
IN RE CHAD DAVIS
Original Proceeding
CONCURRING OPINION
Respectfully, I believe Davis made a good faith effort to comply with the
certification requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j) and is in
substantial compliance with the rule and certainly the objectives of the rule. In his
response to the Court’s letter noting two of the many problems with the petition, he
responded by sending a letter in which he acknowledged the two deficiencies and
responded that he will “correct said deficiencies,” and asked that we file the documents
enclosed with his letter. We did. To correct the lack of an appendix, he has provided a
copy of the transmittal letter and file-marked copy of his petition for expunction, filed
June 21, 2006, a fiat to set the date of the hearing, and a request for a bench warrant, and
proposed form of order. Further, he attached a declaration as authorized by Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code § 132.001, which is a procedure authorized for inmates to
use in certain situations. The procedure is expressly authorized for use in place of,
among other things, a required “certification.” From my review of Davis’s response, I
have no doubt that he intended the declaration as a substitute for the Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 52.3(j) certification.
Further, he includes in the declaration information that is substantially in
compliance with the purpose of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j). Rule 52.3(j)
was intended to protect the appellate practitioner from having to identify someone who
could verify all factual statements in the petition by an affidavit attached to or made a
part of the petition as opposed to the appendix. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, Notes and
Comments. This is now accomplished by including affidavits for the various factual
allegations in the appendix and then having the person who signs the petition to simply
certify that the factual allegations in the petition are supported by competent evidence
included in the appendix. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j), Notes and Comments.
In this instance, all we need is the petition for expunction and the sworn
statement that, notwithstanding it has been on file for over four years and repeated
efforts have been made to call it to the trial court’s attention to get a ruling, the judge
has not ruled on it. Davis has provided this in his response and declaration in lieu of an
affidavit.
This Court, just last week, determined that far less than this constituted
substantial compliance with the requirements for the certification of the petition for writ
of mandamus. See In re Addicks, No. 10-10-00249-CV, letter issued Aug. 10, 2010 (“The
Court sent a letter dated July 20, 2010 to Relator detailing several deficiencies in his
petition.
In re Davis
Relator has timely filed several documents that substantially cure the
Page 2
deficiencies, …”).
Further, because Davis substantially complied, we have all the
information, verified as required or authorized, to request a response or to deny the
petition. I would request a response to confirm what I believe is the reason the petition
for expunction has not been acted upon by the trial court.
MERITS REVIEW
Davis filed a petition for the expunction of records in the 361st District Court, the
Honorable Judge Steve Smith presiding. Now that we have a copy of the expunction
petition, it is clear that the records Davis seeks to have expunged are from a proceeding
before Judge Smith when Judge Smith was judge of County Court at Law No. 1, not the
361st District Court. The petition for expunction has to be filed in the court where the
proceeding to be expunged was originally filed and not the court wherein the judge
now sits. Thus, Davis has filed the expunction petition in the wrong court.
Because Judge Smith has no duty to rule on an expunction motion filed in the
wrong court, and at best all he could do is dismiss the improperly-filed proceeding, I
concur in the Court’s denial of Davis’s petition for writ of mandamus, but not the
reasoning thereof. Accordingly, while it may be the best practice for the trial court
judge to promptly dismiss a petition for expunction when it is filed with the wrong
court, I can concur in the denial of the petition.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Concurring opinion delivered and filed August 25, 2010
In re Davis
Page 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.