In Re David J. Alarid v. the State of Texas

2026-08-13

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus because Alarid failed to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, including improper authentication of documents and failure to clearly identify and cite to the motions he relied upon.

David J. Alarid filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel a trial judge to rule on pending motions challenging an arrest order and to overturn a sanctions order imposed after a contempt finding. The appellate court denied Alarid's request because his petition failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements for mandamus proceedings. Specifically, Alarid's unsworn declaration authenticating the documents in his appendix was deficient because it referenced documents from his own records without asserting personal knowledge that they were true and correct copies, and because he failed to specifically identify and cite to the five motions he claimed were attacking the arrest order.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Authentication requirements for documents in mandamus proceedings
Validity of unsworn declarations lacking personal knowledge statements
Requirement to identify and cite to specific motions in petition arguments

Procedural posture

Alarid filed an original mandamus petition in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana seeking to compel the trial court judge to rule on pending motions and to void a sanctions order.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority 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

(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).

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

Because we deny Alarid’s petition, we overrule his request for emergency relief as moot.