From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Tinsley

State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals
Nov 29, 2018
No. 11-18-00328-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 29, 2018)

Summary

holding that court of appeals did not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless it was necessary to enforce the court of appeals' jurisdiction

Summary of this case from In re Hernandez

Opinion

No. 11-18-00328-CR

11-29-2018

IN RE MICHAEL SHANE TINSLEY


Original Mandamus Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Michael Shane Tinsley, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in this court. He requests that we require the district clerk of Palo Pinto County to perform ministerial duties related to Article 11.07, section 3(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(c) (West 2015). Relator asserts that the district clerk has failed to transmit a copy of certain documents as required. We dismiss Relator's petition for want of jurisdiction.

A court of appeals has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court of appeals. In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). Relator has not shown that a writ of mandamus directed to the district clerk is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk.

Additionally, Relator references the clerk's duties to transmit copies of various documents to the Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Article 11.07, section 3(c). We have no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by Relator with respect to a pending Article 11.07 writ. See Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117-18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (indicating that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction when an Article 11.07 application is pending). We have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings under Article 11.07. In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Should an applicant find it necessary to complain about the processing of an Article 11.07 application for writ of habeas corpus, the applicant may seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Benson v. District Clerk, 331 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).

Relator's petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM November 29, 2018 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Wright, S.C.J. Willson, J., not participating.

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.


Summaries of

In re Tinsley

State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals
Nov 29, 2018
No. 11-18-00328-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 29, 2018)

holding that court of appeals did not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless it was necessary to enforce the court of appeals' jurisdiction

Summary of this case from In re Hernandez
Case details for

In re Tinsley

Case Details

Full title:IN RE MICHAEL SHANE TINSLEY

Court:State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 29, 2018

Citations

No. 11-18-00328-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 29, 2018)

Citing Cases

In re Hernandez

We have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a police department, a county official, or a…