Full Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-26-00184-CR IN RE EARNEST MILES Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Earnest Miles, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel the Honorable Brad Morin, presiding judge of the 71st Judicial District Court of Harrison County, Texas, to rule on a pending pro se motion to order his counsel to “surrender copies of [Miles’s] casefile.” We deny Miles’s requested relief since his petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 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(k). Although Miles’s petition includes an unsworn declaration that the petition and exhibits “are true and correct to the best of [his] knowledge,” he does not certify that he “has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record,” or language substantially similar. Id. Additionally, 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). The documents attached to Miles’s petition are neither certified nor sworn to and appear to contain matters not filed in the underlying proceeding. “‘Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,’ we must ‘strictly enforce[] the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record.’” In re Long, 607 S.W.3d 443, 445 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020, orig. proceeding) (alteration in 2 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.)). Because Miles did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice Date Submitted: October 23, 2026 Date Decided: October 26, 2026 Do Not Publish 3