From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Phillips

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Apr 25, 2007
No. 06-07-00057-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 25, 2007)

Opinion

No. 06-07-00057-CV

Date Submitted: April 24, 2007.

Date Decided: April 25, 2007.

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before MORRISS, C.J., CARTER and MOSELEY, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice, MORRISS.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Boyce Dee Phillips has filed a petition asking this Court to mandamus the production of various portions of the record from the proceedings that resulted in his criminal conviction. It appears from the face of the petition that he is asking this Court to order either the court reporter and/or the district clerk of Red River County to produce his medical records, all DNA tests done, a recorder's (sic) record, and the clerk's record, presumably in connection with his direct appeal to this Court from a conviction for sexual assault on a child.

Phillips' direct appeal in cause number 06-06-00018-CR became final, and we issued our mandate February 14, 2007.

This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against "a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district." Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon 2004). In this context, we do not have jurisdiction to issue such a writ against either the court reporter who reported Phillips' case or the district clerk of Red River County.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.


Summaries of

In re Phillips

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Apr 25, 2007
No. 06-07-00057-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 25, 2007)
Case details for

In re Phillips

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: BOYCE DEE PHILLIPS

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana

Date published: Apr 25, 2007

Citations

No. 06-07-00057-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 25, 2007)

Citing Cases

In re Rodriguez

In re James, No. 06-08-00111-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 7689 (Tex.App.-Texarkana Oct. 10, 2008, orig.…

In re James

Because the clerk is not a proper party against which mandamus relief may be brought in this Court, we deny…