Summary
holding that appellate court lacked jurisdiction to issue mandamus against district attorney when not necessary to enforce its jurisdiction
Summary of this case from In re DavisOpinion
No. 10-09-00263-CV
Opinion delivered and filed August 26, 2009.
Original Proceeding.
dismissed.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice REYNA, and Justice DAVIS PET.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Reginald Ray Spivey seeks by mandamus to compel the district attorney to deliver unclaimed property in the amount of $3,000 to the State Comptroller's Office. See TEX. PROP CODE ANN. § 74.301 (Vernon 2007). There are procedural problems in this proceeding. We use Rule 2 to look beyond those problems. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2.
This Court has mandamus jurisdiction over a judge of district or county court or when necessary to enforce our own jurisdiction. TEX. GOV'T. CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004). We do not have jurisdiction to mandamus a district attorney in this circumstance. Accordingly, Spivey's petition is dismissed.
Further, absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of this Court must collect filing fees at the time a document is presented for filing. TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to TEX. R. APP. P., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). See also TEX. R. APP. P. 5; 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 5; TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 51.207(b); § 51.941(a) (Vernon 2005); and § 51.208 (Vernon Supp. 2008). Under the circumstances of this proceeding, we suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. TEX. R. APP. P. 2. The write-off of the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates or reduces the fees owed by Spivey.