Opinion
12-23-00242-CR
11-21-2023
IN RE: CHRISTOPHER EDWARD PARKS, RELATOR
DO NOT PUBLISH
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Christopher Edward Parks, acting pro se, filed this original proceeding to complain of Respondents Smith County District Clerk Penny Clarkston's and court reporter Jennifer Lowrence failure to provide requested transcripts of the reporter's record.
The State of Texas is the Real Party in Interest.
However, neither a district clerk nor a court reporter is a judge over which this Court has mandamus jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 22.221(a), (b) (West Supp. 2020) (writ power); see also In re Mack, No. 10-17-00186-CR, 2017 WL 2819091, at *1 (Tex. App.-Waco June 28, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction mandamus petition against clerk for failure to provide forms to assist in filing post-conviction relief); In re Eaton, No. 12-15-00118-CR, 2016 WL 6876502, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler, Nov. 22, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider merits of mandamus petition as to district clerk); In re Vargas, No. 01-12-00351-CV, 2012 WL 1454550, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 26, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op) (per curiam) (dismissing mandamus proceeding against district clerk for want of jurisdiction because addressing complaint that clerk refused to file petition was not necessary to enforce appellate court jurisdiction), see also In re Olivarez, Nos.13-23-00389-CR & 13-23-00390-CR, 2023 WL 5814414 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi Sept. 7, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction mandamus petitions seeking writ against court reporter). Nor does the record demonstrate that issuance of a writ of mandamus against Respondents is necessary to protect this Court's jurisdiction, i.e., we have jurisdiction to issue a writ against a district clerk for failure to forward a notice of appeal to this Court because such is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See In re Talkington, No. 12-07-00272-CR, 2007 WL 2178551, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler July 31, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Ex parte Sanders, No. WR-80,356-01, 2013 WL 5872901, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 30, 2013) (order, not designated for publication) (per curiam); In re Foster, No. 14-16-00698-CR, 2016 WL 5853282, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 6, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (per curiam); In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding).
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has "power and authority to grant and issue and cause the issuance of writs of habeas corpus, and, in criminal law matters, the writs of mandamus, procedendo, prohibition, and certiorari." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann . art. 4.04 § 1 (West 2005); see In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (reviewing petition for writ of mandamus against district clerk). Additionally, Relator was sentenced in 2017 for the felony offense of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle. The appropriate method for collaterally attacking a final felony conviction is by a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2022).
Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief under the circumstances of this case, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Christopher Edward Parks; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-23-00242-CR and the defendant in trial court cause number 114-0558-17, formerly pending on the docket of the 114th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on September 18, 2023, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that it lacks jurisdiction, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.