in Re Albert T. Haarmann ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                 NUMBER 13-12-00372-CR
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
    IN RE ALBERT F. HAARMANN
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
    Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
    On June 7, 2012, relator, Albert F. Haarmann, proceeding pro se, filed a petition
    for writ of mandamus seeking to challenge the actions of the Honorable Harris
    Blanchette, Justice of the Peace for Precinct Two in San Jacinto County, Texas. The
    petition for writ of mandamus alleges that Judge Blanchette has refused to provide
    relator with legible copies of three “initial appearance/bail setting/magistrates warnings”
    1
    See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is
    not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
    which were heard on January 11, 2006. We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus
    for want of jurisdiction.2
    Article V, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution specifies the appellate jurisdiction
    of the courts of appeals, and states that the courts of appeals “shall have such other
    jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law.” TEX. CONST. art. V, §
    6.   This Court’s original jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the Texas
    Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004). This section
    provides that we may issue writs of mandamus and “all other writs necessary to enforce
    the jurisdiction of the court.” See 
    id. § 22.221(a).
    The section expressly limits the
    mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to writs of mandamus issued against “a
    judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals’ district” or against a “judge of a
    district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry . . . in the court of
    appeals district.” See 
    id. § 22.221(b).
    Under the express provisions of the government code, a justice of the peace is
    not one of the individuals over whom we have mandamus jurisdiction. See id.; In re
    Smith, 
    355 S.W.3d 901
    , 901–02 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, orig. proceeding) (per
    curiam); Casner v. Rosas, 
    943 S.W.2d 937
    , 938 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, orig.
    proceeding) (per curiam); Easton v. Franks, 
    842 S.W.2d 772
    , 773–74 (Tex. App.—
    Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)). Further, the matters at issue
    in this original proceeding arise from San Jacinto County. San Jacinto County is not
    located within this Court’s district. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(n) (West Supp.
    2
    Relator filed an “application for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus” along with his petition
    for writ of mandamus. We dismiss relator’s application for leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus
    as moot. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure no longer require the relator to file a motion or
    application for leave to file an original proceeding. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52, cmt. to 1997
    revision.
    2
    2011) (listing the counties that comprise the Thirteenth Court of Appeals District); 
    id. 22.201(j) (West
    Supp. 2011) (stating that San Jacinto County is in the Ninth Court of
    Appeals District). Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.
    See 
    id. § 22.221(b).
    As stated previously, we also have the statutory authority to issue all writs
    necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.     See 
    id. § 22.221(a);
    In re Richardson, 
    327 S.W.3d 848
    , 851 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, orig. proceeding); In re Phillips, 
    296 S.W.3d 682
    , 684 n.3 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, orig. proceeding). However, relator
    has neither argued nor shown that his requested relief is necessary to enforce the
    jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, relator has not invoked our jurisdiction over the matters
    herein. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a).
    The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
    mandamus, is of the opinion that it lacks jurisdiction over this matter. We dismiss the
    petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
    PER CURIAM
    Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    Delivered and filed the
    18th day of June, 2012.
    3