in Re Michael Kennedy ( 2009 )

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 19, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-09-00953-CV

____________

IN RE MICHAEL KENNEDY, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            On November 12, 2009, relator, Michael Kennedy, filed a petition for extraordinary relief, which we construe as a petition for writ of mandamus, in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. In his petition, relator seeks relief against Chief Justice James T. Worthen and Justices Brian Hoyle and Sam Griffith of the Twelfth Court of Appeals in Tyler, Texas, concerning the appeal filed under that court’s case number 12-08-00246-CV, of his criminal conviction in cause number 29326, from the 3rd District Court in Anderson County, Texas.

            This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. Section 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a district court judge or county court judge in the court of appeals’ district, and (2) all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004). This court has no power to issue an extraordinary writ against justices of another court of appeals.[1]

            Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is ordered dismissed.

                                                                        PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Sullivan.

---

[1]  The petition also refers to Danielle Simpson as another relator. Kennedy, who is not an attorney and is appearing pro se, may not seek relief on behalf of another party. See, e.g., Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 81.101-.102 (Vernon 2005) (defining unauthorized practice of law); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.123 (Vernon 2003) (explaining that the unathorized practice of law is a Class A misdemeanor); Crain v. The Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. of the Sup.Ct. of Tex., 11 S.W.3d 328, 332-34 (Tex. App.-—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (explaining that a person who is not a licensed attorney may not represent other persons in legal matters).