in Re Donald Wayne Smith, Relator ( 2007 )

NO. 07-07-0084-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

APRIL 3, 2007

______________________________



IN RE DONALD WAYNE SMITH, RELATOR

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Donald Wayne Smith, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Hale County District Clerk, Carla Cannon, to transmit documents to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

According to his petition, Smith contends he filed an "Application for Motion Nun [sic] Pro Tunc" which the District Clerk should have forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals together with any answers filed thereto. He alleges that if the documents had been transmitted as required by article 2.21 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, he would have received notice from the Court of Criminal Appeals.

This Court has the authority to issue writs of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in our district and all writs necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004). In order for a district clerk to fall within our jurisdictional reach, it must be established that the issuance of the writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Jose A. Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692-93 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.). Relator has not demonstrated that the exercise of our mandamus authority against the Hale County District Clerk is appropriate to enforce our jurisdiction. Consequently, we have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against Carla Cannon.  

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Patrick A. Pirtle

Justice

NO. 07-11-00153-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

JULY 13, 2011

MESA WATER, L.P. AND

G&J RANCH, INC., APPELLANTS

v.

TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, APPELLEE

 FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY;

NO. D-1-GN-10-000819; HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ORDER

            Appellants, Mesa Water, L.P. and G & J Ranch, Inc., have filed an unopposed motion to abate this appeal so that they may continue a transaction in which appellants intend to convey their interests in groundwater rights to the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA). Appellants have represented to this Court that said motion is unopposed and such representation is supported by appellants’ counsel’s certificate of conference.  We grant the unopposed motion to abate this appeal for a period of sixty days from the date of this order.

            Pursuant to a joint sale agreement between the appellants and a sales contract between appellants and CRMWA, appellants intend to convey their interests in the groundwater rights and, if the transaction is successful, appellants will no longer hold any interest in the groundwater rights at issue in the instant appeal.  In furtherance of the sales contract, it would appear that the parties have undertaken certain further actions prior to the contemplated closing.  During the period of time in which the parties complete these actions and finalize the sale, appellants seek to have their appeal abated.  Appellants explain that this period of time may extend over the course of several months, perhaps until November 2011.

            Judicial economy may be best served by permitting the parties to the contemplated sale the opportunity and time to fulfill their obligations under the contract the successful completion of which will likely render the appeal moot.  To require the parties to the appeal to prosecute the appeal during the pendency of the sale could be to waste both counsels’ and this Court’s time and resources. So, to possibly expedite disposition of this appeal and in the interest of conservation of judicial resources, we suspend the operation of the applicable appellate timetables and order that the appeal be abated for a period of sixty days from the date of this order.  Tex. R. App. P. 2.

            Before the expiration of the sixty-day abatement period or upon any development that might cause the Court to reinstate the appeal, the parties are directed to advise the Court of the status of the transaction.  At the end of the sixty-day abatement period, the Court will entertain a motion to further abate the appeal should the need be present to do so.  We suspend all appellate deadlines and abate this appeal, removing it from our active docket and treating it as a closed case, until the sixty-day abatement period expires or until further order of this Court.  See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 43.6.

            IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                                                    Per Curiam