Full Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-26-00097-CV IN RE DAVID J. ALARID Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin MEMORANDUM OPINION By his petition for a writ of mandamus, Relator, David J. Alarid, asks this Court to compel the Honorable R. Wesley Tidwell, presiding judge of the Sixth Judicial District Court of Lamar County, Texas, to take certain actions. Because Relator failed to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we deny his petition.1 Rule 52.7(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states that a relator must file with the petition “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). Rule 52.3(1)(1)(B) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states, “The appendix . . . must contain . . . 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). Alarid attempts to meet these requirements with what he contends are unsworn declarations in conformity with Section 132.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001. The body of his purported unsworn statement of August 13, 2026, states that he is “presently outside the United States,” but the signature block does not provide a location outside the United States; it sets forth an address in 1 Alarid has twice been before this Court with petitions for a writ of mandamus. Alarid first sought to have us compel the trial court judge of the 62nd Judicial District Court of Lamar County, Texas, to vacate a contempt order against Alarid. In re Alarid, No. 06-26-00071-CV, 2026 WL 1425143, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana May 21, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Next, Alarid requested that we compel Judge Tidwell to “rule on fully briefed motions attacking an order commanding Relator’s arrest,” and argued that a January 13, 2026, order imposing sanctions against him after he was held in contempt was void. In re Alarid, No. 06-26-00094-CV, 2026 WL 2350030, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Aug. 13, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). In both instances, we denied his requested relief since his petitions did not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id. at *2; 2026 WL1425143, at *1. 2 Texas. Alarid’s purported unsworn declaration submitted to support a supplemental record states the same.2 “Section 132.001 . . . provides that ‘an unsworn declaration may be used in lieu of a written sworn declaration, verification, certification, oath, or affidavit required by statute or required by a rule, order, or requirement adopted as provided by law.’” In re Greenough, No. 06-23-00047-CR, 2023 WL 2657656, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 28, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (quoting TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001(a)). Section 132.001(d) provides that “an unsworn declaration made under this section must include a jurat” substantially like the form provided in the statute. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001(d). Alarid’s unsworn declarations fail to substantially comply with the requirements of Section 132.001(d). Section 132.001(d) specifies that the unsworn declaration is to include language specifying the location in which the declaration was executed: “Executed in _______ County, State of ________________, on the _____ day of _____________(Month), _____________ (Year).” Id. Alarid claims that Section 132.001 “authorizes an unsworn declaration, in lieu of a notarized affidavit, by a declarant who is outside the United States.” Alarid provides no authority for that assertion. 2 The proffered supplemental record contains a purported unsworn declaration submitted by Alarid in a prior appellate case, cause number 06-26-00071-CV. That declaration is dated July 7, 2026, before his August 13, 2026, filing of his present petition. In it, Alarid indicates that, as of July 7, 2026, he was in “Monterrey, State of Nuevo León, México.” That declaration, however, is part of the proffered supplemental record here, not a declaration serving to support the proffered records in this case. 3 The Texas Legislature, by statutes other than Section 132.001, has provided for an oath to be sworn outside the United States. See, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 121.001(c); TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 602.004; In re Marriage of Sandoval, 619 S.W.3d 716, 722 (Tex. 2021) (per curiam). The plain language of Section 132.001 does not anticipate that an unsworn declaration under that section would be properly executed outside the United States. The plain language of Section 132.001 provides that an unsworn declaration must include a jurat in substantially the form given for three different situations: (1) “an unsworn declaration made under this section,” (2) “an unsworn declaration made . . . by an inmate,” and (3) “an unsworn declaration made . . . by an employee of a state agency or a political subdivision in the performance of the employee’s job duties.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001(d), (e), (f). In each of the three given forms, the location of execution is required (though in the inmate form, the location is determined through the location of the corrections unit in which the inmate is incarcerated). Id. The plain language of Section 132.001 anticipates that the location in each of the three situations will include a county and state. Id. As stated above, Alarid has not provided us with authority indicating that an unsworn declaration may be executed outside the United States. Alarid has, likewise, not provided authority indicating that it is acceptable to omit the declarant’s true location from an unsworn declaration.3 3 In other words, for purposes of this decision, we chose to treat the geographic conflict in the purported declarations as an omission rather than an attempt to have cake (by stating in the body that the declaration is made outside of the United States, and asserting that is legally proper) and eat it too (by setting forth in the jurat section a location of execution in Texas so as to claim the benefit of Section 132.001). 4 Alarid has failed to provide us with a sufficient record because the jurat in his unsworn declaration purporting to authenticate the documents in his appendix is not in substantially correct form under Section 132.001. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001(d). As such, the documents in Alarid’s appendix do not conform to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(l)(1)(B), 52.7(a)(1). As a result, we deny Alarid’s petition for a writ of mandamus.4 Jeff Rambin Justice Date Submitted: August 28, 2026 Date Decided: August 31, 2026 4 While this Court considered his petition for a writ of mandamus, Alarid also filed an emergency motion to preserve the status quo. Because we have denied his petition, we overrule Alarid’s emergency motion as moot. 5