Opinion
No. 14-08-01141-CR
Opinion filed January 8, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH C TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Original Proceeding Writ of Mandamus.
Panel consists of Justices YATES, GUZMAN, and SULLIVAN.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On December 18, 2008, relator, Wayne Dee Binford, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann `22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. In his petition, relator requests that we compel the Harris County District Clerk to forward his application for writ of habeas corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. A court of appeals has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals' district and all writs necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(b). For a district clerk to come within our jurisdictional reach, it must be established that the issuance of the writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692-93 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Relator is attempting to file his application for writ of habeas corpus with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals challenging a final felony conviction. Although courts of appeals have jurisdiction over criminal matters, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to final post-conviction felony proceedings. Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not shown that the exercise of our mandamus authority against the Harris County District Clerk is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Therefore, we have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against the Harris County District Clerk. Because we do not have jurisdiction, the petition for writ of mandamus is ordered dismissed.