Ex Parte Gilbert Joseph Carrasco

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-22-00267-CR
EX PARTE GILBERT JOSEPH CARRASCO
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
October 5, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Gilbert Joseph Carrasco, proceeding pro se, filed document or petition through
which he seeks a “writ of exoneration.” Therein, he mentions being incarcerated for 12
months, “never” having been “found guilty,” and being “innocent of [the] crime.” To which
“crime” he alludes is unmentioned, as is whether he remains incarcerated. Yet, he seeks
damages redressing his incarceration, an expunction of records, and a writ of mandamus.
To the extent that he is incarcerated and seeks release, we interpret his request
as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. As such, we lack jurisdiction to consider it for our
authority extends only to civil cases. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (limiting
original habeas jurisdiction of intermediate appellate courts to civil cases); Ex parte
Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 588–89 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, orig. proceeding) (per
curiam).
To the extent Carrasco seeks a writ of mandamus, our jurisdiction is again limited.
Statute permits us to issue such writs only to enforce our jurisdiction, or only “against”
judges. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b)(1)–(3) (naming the specific judges
subject to an appellate court’s mandamus jurisdiction). Carrasco mentions no judge
against or judicial act about which he seeks mandamus. Nor does he mention the
existence of an appeal before us necessitating mandamus intervention to protect our
jurisdiction over it. Thus, his allegations fail to trigger our mandamus jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we dismiss Carrasco’s petition for want of jurisdiction.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
2