-
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-07-00057-CV ______________________________
IN RE: BOYCE DEE PHILLIPS
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Boyce Dee Phillips has filed a petition asking this Court to mandamus the production of various portions of the record from the proceedings that resulted in his criminal conviction. It appears from the face of the petition that he is asking this Court to order either the court reporter and/or the district clerk of Red River County to produce his medical records, all DNA tests done, a recorder's (sic) record, and the clerk's record, presumably in connection with his direct appeal to this Court from a conviction for sexual assault on a child. (1)
This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against "a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district." Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon 2004). In this context, we do not have jurisdiction to issue such a writ against either the court reporter who reported Phillips' case or the district clerk of Red River County.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: April 24, 2007
Date Decided: April 25, 2007
1. Phillips' direct appeal in cause number 06-06-00018-CR became final, and we issued our mandate February 14, 2007.
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
We have reviewed the brief in detail and have also conducted an independent review of the record. We agree with counsel that no reversible error is apparent from this record.
The judgment is affirmed.
Donald R. Ross
Justice
Date Submitted: July 2, 2002
Date Decided: July 3, 2002
Do Not Publish
1. This appeal is trial court number 852235, indecency with a child. The companion cases are trial court number 852236, sexual assault on a child, and trial court number 852237, indecency with a child. He was sentenced to thirty-five years' imprisonment in the first case, to life imprisonment in the second, and to fifty years' imprisonment in the third. The first two sentences will run consecutively, and the third will run concurrently with the life sentence.
Document Info
Docket Number: 06-07-00057-CV
Filed Date: 4/25/2007
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/7/2015