eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2011-11

in Re David-Richard: Lutz ( 2011 )


Menu:

  • TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN





    NO. 03-11-00500-CV

    In re David-Richard: Lutz





    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

    M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N



    Relator David-Richard Lutz filed a petition for writ of   quo warranto   in this Court.   See   Tex. R. App. P. 52. In his petition, Lutz complains that the Respondents--the Honorable Billy Ray Stubblefield, presiding judge of the 26th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas, the Honorable John Bradley,   Criminal District Attorney in and for Williamson County, Texas, and Lisa David, District Clerk of Williamson County, Texas--have failed to fulfill their official duties and have breached their oaths of office by denying him a jury trial in a civil equity action that he filed in an attempt to nullify the judgments of his criminal convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child.

       Quo warranto   is an ancient common-law writ that gave the king an action against a person who claimed or usurped any office, franchise, or liberty, to inquire by what authority that person supported the claim to hold office.   Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. v. Lazy Nine Mun. Util. Dist. ex rel. Bd. of Directors  , 198 S.W.3d 300, 310 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2006, pet. denied);      Newsom v. State  , 922 S.W.2d 274, 277 (Tex. App.--Austin 1996, writ denied);   State ex rel. City of Colleyville v. City of Hurst  , 519 S.W.2d 698, 700 (Tex. Civ. App.--Fort Worth 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In the modern context, a writ of   quo warranto   is an extraordinary remedy used to determine disputed questions concerning the proper person entitled to hold a public office and exercise its functions. (1) State ex rel. Angelini v. Hardberger  , 932 S.W.2d 489, 490 (Tex. 1996) (citing   State ex rel. Jennett v. Owens  , 63 Tex. 261, 270 (Tex. 1885));   Save Our Springs  , 198 S.W.3d at 310; see   Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 66.001 (West 2008)  .   Thus, the purpose now of a   quo warranto   action is to test whether an individual has the proper authority to hold an office, not to test the validity of their actions once in office.   See     Newsom  , 922 S.W.2d at 278-79;   see also State ex rel. Dowlen v. Rigsby  , 17 Tex. Civ. App. 171, 172, 43 S.W. 271, 272 (Galveston 1897),   writ ref'd  , 91 Tex. 351, 43 S.W. 1101 (Tex. 1897);   State ex rel. Phillips v. Trent Indep. Sch. Dist.  , 141 S.W.2d 438, 440 (Tex. Civ. App.--Eastland 1940, writ ref'd). Lutz's petition does not raise an issue for which a writ of   quo warranto   is available, and therefore is an improper vehicle for obtaining the relief sought.

    Moreover, the writ power of this Court is limited to issuing writs of mandamus and all other writs necessary to e  n  force our jurisdiction, which does not include a writ of   quo warranto  .   See   Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(a) (West 2004).   The Texas Supreme Court, not the courts of appeals, is vested with the power to issue writs of   quo warranto  .   Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.002(a) (West 2008); see   Tex. Const. art. V, § 3. We do not have original jurisdiction over proceedings seeking a writ of   quo warranto  .

    Accordingly, we dismiss Lutz's petitio  n for writ of   quo warranto   for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).





       __________________________________________

    J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

    Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Henson

    Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

    Filed: November 2, 2011

    Do Not Publish

    1. A   quo warranto   action may also be used   to question the existence of a public co  r  poration or district and its right to act.   See     Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 66.001 (West   2008  )  .