in Re Edward Charles Holland ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                       In The
    Court of Appeals
    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
    __________________
    NO. 09-20-00065-CR
    __________________
    IN RE EDWARD CHARLES HOLLAND
    __________________________________________________________________
    Original Proceeding
    Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
    Trial Cause Nos. 83949, 91161
    __________________________________________________________________
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Relator Edward Charles Holland filed a petition for writ of mandamus, in
    which he asks this Court to compel the district clerk to transmit a copy of relator’s
    motion for judgment nunc pro tunc to this Court and to Holland. Attached to
    Holland’s motion was a request to the district clerk, in which Holland asked the
    district clerk to “force” the trial court to respond to his motion for judgment nunc
    pro tunc.
    1
    Both of the underlying cases to which Holland’s petition pertains are final
    convictions. See Holland v. State, No. 10-04-00239-CR, 
    2005 WL 1580681
    (Tex.
    App.—Waco July 6, 2005, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication); Holland v.
    State, No. 09-04-00194-CR, 
    2006 WL 1045176
    (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 19,
    2006, no pet.) (not designated for publication). The district clerk is not a person
    against whom we may issue a writ of mandamus other than to enforce our
    jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a), (b).
    Holland has not shown that issuance of a writ against the district clerk is
    necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See id.; see also In re Pennington, No. 09-08-
    370-CV, 
    2008 WL 4425521
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 2, 2008, orig.
    proceeding) (mem. op). The proceedings at issue are post-conviction matters that do
    not implicate this Court’s jurisdiction. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07,
    § 3(a). Holland has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief from this
    Court. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
    PETITION DENIED.
    PER CURIAM
    Submitted on March 17, 2020
    Opinion Delivered March 18, 2020
    Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-20-00065-CR

Filed Date: 3/18/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/18/2020