in Re Donald Gene Blanton

DENIED and Opinion Filed March 27, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-20-00288-CV

IN RE DONALD GENE BLANTON, Relator On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 23078-86 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Evans

Opinion by Justice Molberg

In this original proceeding, Donald Gene Blanton petitions the Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to order the State to obey a 2005 pretrial order directing the State to turn over to relator grand jury transcripts1 and for this Court or some other tribunal to conduct a hearing, with a change of venue and appointment of counsel, regarding his claims that the trial court judge and other officials conspired to forge an 11.07 writ application for him without his consent, thus proving his innocence. We deny relief.

A petition seeking mandamus relief must contain a certification stating that the relator “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). Relator’s petition does not contain a certification and thus does not comply with rule 52.3(j). See id.; In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding).

Moreover, to establish a right to mandamus relief, the relator must show that the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). As the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires the relator to file an appendix with his petition 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). Rule 52.7(a)(1) requires the relator to file with the petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1).

Relator has attached copies of documents to his petition, but most of the copies are not certified or sworn copies and thus are not properly authenticated under the rules of appellate procedure.2 On the existing record, relator cannot establish that the trial court has violated a ministerial duty and he is entitled to mandamus relief. See Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 759.

Finally, we note that even if relator’s petition was properly authenticated and supported by a properly authenticated record, it does not show relator is entitled to mandamus relief. After the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction expires, it does not retain general jurisdiction over a case. State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (plurality op.). The trial court retains limited jurisdiction to address certain matters such as ensuring that a higher court’s mandate is carried out, fact finding on habeas applications, and presiding over post-conviction DNA testing. Id. Relator’s belated effort to obtain pretrial discovery from the State does not fall within the trial court’s limited continuing jurisdiction. See id. The hearing relator requests regarding an alleged post-conviction conspiracy would fall within the purview of an 11.07 habeas writ rather than this Court’s mandamus jurisdiction. See generally TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; In re Harrison, 187 S.W.3d 199, 200 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2006, orig. proceeding) (declining to grant mandamus relief where relator’s collateral attack on conviction more appropriately brought as article 11.07 habeas proceeding).

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

/Ken Molberg// KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE

200288F.P05