Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-26-00395-CR IN RE CHARLES BRICE CHAPMAN, RELATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING October 26, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and PRATT, JJ. Relator Charles Brice Chapman, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order from this Court compelling the trial court to rule on an application for writ of habeas corpus and a motion to quash. We deny the petition. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted only when a relator can show that (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). When seeking mandamus relief, the relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). To meet this burden, the relator must provide a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. Id. at 837; In re Johnson, No. 06-13-00137-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 52, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 7, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). The record must include “a certified or sworn copy of the relevant trial court order, or any other document showing the matter complained of . . . .” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(l)(1)(B). Additionally, the relator must provide a record that includes a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to his claim and that was filed in any underlying proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Chapman has failed to comply with these requirements and has thus failed to establish his entitlement to relief. While Chapman filed an appendix to his petition, none of these documents is a “certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief . . . .” See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Documents may be certified by the trial court clerk. “Documents become sworn copies when they are attached to an affidavit or unsworn declaration wherein the affiant or declarant demonstrates under penalty of perjury that he or she has personal knowledge that the documents attached are true and correct copies of the originals.” In re Jayroe, No. 05-26-00109-CV, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 1199, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 9, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Because Chapman’s appendix is not certified and does not invoke the penalty of perjury, it is insufficient. Id. Further, Chapman’s appendix does not include “a certified or sworn copy of . . . any other document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(l)(1)(B). His appendix includes a tab for a copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus for which he seeks mandamus relief. However, the appendix does not include a copy of this document. Rather, Chapman indicates that he would supplement 2 his appendix with a certified copy of the application. To date, Chapman has not filed any copy of this application. A party proceeding pro se is not exempt from complying with the rules of procedure. Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam). Chapman’s failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 52 requires denial of the petition. In re Bolton, No. 07-22-00263-CR, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 8000, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 28, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Consequently, we deny Chapman’s petition for writ of mandamus. Judy C. Parker Chief Justice Do not publish. 3