Full Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-26-00162-CR IN RE JAMES CHARLES WILLIAMS, JR. Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, James Charles Williams, Jr., has filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus asking this Court to “direct[] the Honorable [John L. Tidwell,] of the 202nd [Judicial] District Court of Bowie County,” Texas, “to grant [his] properly filed Motion [t]o Dismiss Counsel and Waiver of Right to Counsel,” in two cases “in which [he was] charged with the offense of [i]mpersonating a [p]ublic [s]ervant.” We deny Williams’s petition. Rule 52.3(k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires the person filing the petition for a writ of mandamus to “certify that he or she 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). Furthermore, Rule 52.3(h) requires that each factual statement “in the petition must be supported by citation to competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h). In addition, Rule 52.7(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires a relator to “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). Moreover, Rule 52.3(l)(1)(B) states that “[t]he 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). Williams did not comply with these procedural rules, along with others. “‘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. 2 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.)). For the reasons above, we conclude that Williams failed to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and has not met his burden of providing a record sufficient to show himself entitled to mandamus relief. We, therefore, deny Williams’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice Date Submitted: September 29, 2026 Date Decided: September 30, 2026 Do Not Publish 3