in Re Daniel Harris ( 2014 )

Opinion issued May 1, 2014.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00873-CR
———————————
IN RE DANIEL HARRIS, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Daniel Harris, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus,
complaining that the Harris County District Clerk has not provided him documents
regarding his post-conviction writ of habeas corpus, sent documents to the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals, and complied with a clerk’s duties in a criminal
proceeding.1
This Court does not have jurisdiction to grant relator’s requested relief. By
statute, we have the authority only to issue a writ of mandamus against a district
court judge or a county court judge within the Court’s jurisdiction, and may issue
all writs necessary to enforce this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T
CODE ANN. § 22.221(a)–(b) (West 2004). We have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of
mandamus against a district clerk except to protect our jurisdiction. In re Smith,
263 S.W.3d 93, 94 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (citing
In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig.
proceeding)).
Moreover, we have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law
matters pertaining to proceedings under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article
11.07. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a), (b) (West Supp. 2013);
In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196–97 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006,
orig. proceeding); see also In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (noting that only Court of Criminal
Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings).
1
Harris’s petition indicates that the underlying proceeding is cause number
1204054-A, styled Ex parte Daniel Harris, in the 182nd District Court of Harris
County, Texas, the Honorable Jeannine Barr presiding.
2
Conclusion
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of
jurisdiction. We dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3