in Re William Youngstrom, Relator ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-14-00210-CV
________________________
IN RE WILLIAM WALTER YOUNGSTROM, RELATOR
Original Proceeding Arising from the 355th District Court
Hood County, Texas
Trial Court No. 12355; Honorable Ralph H. Walton, Jr., Presiding
June 16, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Relator, William Walter Youngstrom, proceeding pro se, files this mandamus
proceeding complaining of Matthew A. Mills, his court-appointed appellate attorney in
Youngstrom v. State, Cause Number 07-13-00385-CR. He alleges Mills refused to
raise certain issues in his direct appeal which denied him effective assistance of
counsel.1 We dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
1
This Court delivered its opinion and judgment affirming Relator’s conviction for delivery of a
controlled substance on June 9, 2014. See Youngstrom v. State, No. 07-13-00385-CR, 2014 Tex. App.
LEXIS 6215, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 9, 2014, no pet. h.).
This Court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus necessary to enforce
our jurisdiction, consistent with the principles of law regulating such a writ, against a
judge of a district or county court in our district. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. ' 22.221(a), (b)
(West 2004). An attorney representing an appellant on direct appeal is not within our
jurisdictional reach. Furthermore, Relator has not demonstrated that issuance of a writ
of mandamus is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691,
692-93 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.). Consequently, we have no authority to
issue a writ of mandamus against Matthew A. Mills.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
2