in Re Barry Dwayne Minnfee, Relator ( 2012 )

NO. 07-12-0369-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
SEPTEMBER 5, 2012
______________________________
In re BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE,
Relator
______________________________
Original Proceeding
______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Pending before the court is Barry Dwayne Minnfee’s application for a writ of
mandamus. He requests a writ of mandamus against “clerk” for the “municipal judge.”
We dismiss the petition.
Relator complains that the clerk for the municipal court in Amarillo, Texas, has
refused to file a document wherein he requests DNA testing. Mandamus is intended to
be an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited circumstances. In re Southwestern
Bell Telephone Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Texas
Government Code § 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of
appeals to writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court of appeals and writs
against specified district or county court judges in the court of appeals district. TEX.
GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West 2004). Consequently, unless necessary to
enforce our jurisdiction, we have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the
municipal court clerk. In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.–San Antonio
1998, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (noting because a district clerk is not a judge, a
relator must show issuance of a writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce the
jurisdiction of the court of appeals). Relator’s mandamus petition does not claim, nor
does it appear to seek relief designed to enforce this court’s jurisdiction. Relator does
not allege that he has an appeal pending before this court.
Furthermore, relator has failed to show any authority permitting him to petition for
DNA testing through a municipal or small claims court to attack his conviction. Nor has
he provided this court with a copy of the petition in the form of an appendix.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Per Curiam
2