Opinion
No. 01-06-01062-CR
Opinion issued: March 15, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Panel Consists of Chief Justice, RADACK, and Justices JENNINGS and BLANDU.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Michael E. Roberts, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. In his petition, Relator refers to four felony convictions, in 1999, in trial court cause numbers 770396, 771007, 771371, 667886, in which he was sentenced to confinement for 40 years. Relator names as respondents the judge of the 182nd District Court and the Texas Attorney General. His petition requests this Court to order the respondents to provide: a certificate of appeal, a pauper's affidavit, and a hearing for discovery of evidence to assist him in preparing an appeal. We deny the petition. We may issue all writs of mandamus, agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs, against a judge of a district or county court in our district. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon Supp. 2006). We may also issue writs of mandamus and all other writs necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006). Mandamus issues only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy at law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). Relator's requests do not fall within our mandamus authority. Even if we considered relator's request as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, we have neither original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal cases, nor post-conviction habeas corpus jurisdiction in felony cases. See Board of Pardons Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District, 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3 (Vernon Supp. 2006). The petition for writ of mandamus is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.