Anthony Ray Banks v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00281-CR
NO. 09-22-00282-CR
NO. 09-22-00283-CR
__________________
ANTHONY RAY BANKS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 93-64255, 94-67286 and 94-67288
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Anthony Ray Banks was convicted and sentenced in Trial Cause Numbers
64255, 67286 and 67288 in 1995. In 2021, Banks sought mandamus relief from the
Court of Criminal Appeals, which directed the judge of the 252nd District Court of
Jefferson County, Texas, to file a response stating, “whether or not Relator’s motion
has properly and timely been presented to it; if so, whether it has been ruled on; and
whether or not Relator’s trial attorney has provided Relator with copies of his client
1
files.” See In re Banks, No. WR-80,275-05, 2021 WL 4448551, at *1 (Tex. Crim.
App. Sept. 29, 2021) (order, not designated for publication). The Court of Criminal
Appeals later denied leave to file the application for a writ of mandamus, and
thereafter Banks sought mandamus relief in the 252nd District Court asking that
court to compel the lawyer who represented him in Trial Cause Numbers 64255,
67286, and 67288 to give Banks ninety-one pages of discovery the State of Texas
shared with counsel in the criminal cases. The trial court issued an Order denying
the requested mandamus relief. On May 25, 2022, the 252nd District Court noted
that it lacked plenary power over the respective cases, that Banks failed to request
or obtain service of citation on either his former attorney or the State, and that the
trial court lacked the power to order Bank’s former attorney to take any action in the
closed criminal cases.
We notified Banks that it appeared that we lacked jurisdiction over his
appeals. In response, Banks filed a pro se response and he argued that he has invoked
this Court’s original mandamus jurisdiction. See generally Tex. Gov’t Code Ann.
§ 22.221.
It appears that Banks is attempting to obtain 91 pages from his former
attorney’s file. According to the record now before us, the former attorney provided
2
his client file to Banks but indicated he withheld the 91 pages because it contains the
State’s discovery from the closed criminal cases. 1
Appeals in criminal cases are permitted only when they are specifically
authorized by statute. State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2011) (orig. proceeding). Banks has not identified a statute that would permit
him to pursue an appeal from the trial court’s May 25, 2022 Order denying his
request for mandamus relief in Trial Cause Numbers 64255, 67286 and 67288.
Because Banks is not challenging any order or judgment for which an appeal is
statutorily authorized, we lack jurisdiction over these appeals. See Abbott v. State,
271 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals
for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
APPEALS DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on December 13, 2022
Opinion Delivered December 14, 2022
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
1
In her Order denying Banks’ application for mandamus relief, the trial court
stated:
Thus, it appears that inmate-relator has obtained his client file, less
State discovery material that [the] attorney [] is prohibited from
disclosing. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 39.14(d), (f); Powell v. Hocker,
516 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).
3