Full Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-26-00094-CV IN RE DAVID J. ALARID Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, David J. Alarid, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel the Honorable R. Wesley Tidwell, presiding judge of the Sixth Judicial District Court of Lamar County, Texas, to, among other things, “rule on fully briefed motions attacking an order commanding Relator’s arrest.” Alarid also argues that the trial court’s January 13, 2026, order imposing additional sanctions against him after he was held in contempt for “disobeying multiple Orders of [the trial] Court,” was void for lack of notice. We deny Alarid’s requested relief since his petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 52.7(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires a relator to file with his petition for a writ of mandamus “a 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.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). “[A]n unsworn declaration may be used in lieu of a written sworn declaration . . . .” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001(a). Alarid filed an unsworn declaration wherein he states, “Each document contained in each part of Relator’s Appendix filed herewith is a true and correct copy of the original or of a file-stamped or system-generated copy obtained from the records of the courts, from the electronic filing system, or from [his] own records and correspondence, without alteration.” (Emphasis added). The inclusion of documents from Alarid’s own records and correspondence does not meet the requirements of Rule 52.7. Further, to constitute a proper unsworn declaration, a relator must state that “he has personal knowledge that the copies of the documents in the appendix [or record] are true and correct copies of the originals.” In re Holland, No. 05-26-00751-CR, 2026 WL 1511079, at *1 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 29, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing In re Robinson, No. 05-19-01463-CV, 2020 WL 401762, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)). Absent a statement of personal knowledge, “the documents are not sworn copies, and thus not properly authenticated under the rules of appellate procedure.” Id. (citing In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding)); see In re Atkins, No. 06-25-00075-CV, 2025 WL 2535629, at *1 (Tex. App.— Texarkana Sept. 4, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Henderson, No. 06-15-00034-CR, 2015 WL 13522812, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 10, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). “‘Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,’ we must ‘strictly enforce[] the authentication requirements of [R]ule 52 to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record.’” In re Long, 607 S.W.3d 443, 445 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020, orig. proceeding) (first alteration in original) (quoting In re Smith, No. 05-19-00268-CV, 2019 WL 1305970, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 22, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)). Moreover, Alarid’s mandamus petition states that “[f]ive motions attacking an arrest order” were filed by him, but his petition does not identify the five motions or point to them in the appendix or record. As a result, Alarid does not comply with Rule 52.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring the mandamus “petition [to] contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(i). 3 Because Alarid did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus.1 Charles van Cleef Justice Date Submitted: August 12, 2026 Date Decided: August 13, 2026 1 Because we deny Alarid’s petition, we overrule his request for emergency relief as moot. 4