in Re Christopher Grissom ( 2014 )

NUMBER 13-14-00505-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE CHRISTOPHER GRISSOM
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
On September 8, 2014, relator Christopher Grissom, proceeding pro se, filed a
petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief against respondent Patsy Perez, the District
Clerk of Nueces County, Texas, because relator has not received a response or other
ruling regarding relator’s motion for nunc pro tunc judgment. We dismiss this original
proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
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.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
1
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has no
adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm and that what he seeks to compel is
a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v.
Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of App. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
If the relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of
mandamus should be denied. See id. In addition to other requirements, the relator must
include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the
appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the
contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.”
See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that the relator must furnish
an appendix or record that is sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id.R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the
required contents for the record).
II. ANALYSIS
Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus fails to meet the foregoing requirements
insofar as it fails to include a clear and concise argument for the contentions made with
appropriate citations to relevant authority and it fails to contain either an appendix or a
record. See id. R. 52.3. More saliently, however, this Court does not have mandamus
jurisdiction over district clerks unless it is shown that issuance of the writ is necessary to
enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West, Westlaw
through 2013 3d C.S.); In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2006, orig. proceeding); In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San
2
Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). For instance, mandamus relief is appropriate when a
clerk fails to file and forward a notice of appeal to the appropriate court of appeals. In re
Smith, 270 S.W.3d 783, 785 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Smith, 263
S.W.3d at 95–96; In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d at 182; see also Aranda v. Dist. Clerk, 207
S.W.3d 785, 786–87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (granting
mandamus relief where the district clerk failed to file a post-conviction habeas
application). In this case, relator has neither argued nor shown that issuance of the writ
is necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction to consider this matter. Accordingly, the petition
for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED 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
11th day of September, 2014.
3