Opinion
No. 01-09-00188-CR
Opinion issued May 19, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.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 TAFT and SHARP.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Lorenzo Rubio Quintero, has filed in this Court a petition for writ of mandamus, requesting that this Court order respondent, Harris County District Clerk "to disclose and produce the pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report filed in relator's criminal case cause number 741722." Relator states that he was convicted in cause number 741722 of the offense of aggravated sexual assault, and following a pre-sentence investigation was sentenced, on October 30, 1997, to confinement for 40 years. This Court has mandamus jurisdiction over a district court judge or county court judge in our district, and all writs necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) (Vernon 2008). We do not have authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless such is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). This is because jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas corpus relief in felony cases rests exclusively with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3 (Vernon Supp. 2008); 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). Therefore, because the matter raised in relator's petition does not affect our jurisdiction, we must deny the petition. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Any pending motions are denied.
Relator names as respondent, the Honorable Loren Jackson, Harris County District Clerk.
We note that relator's petition for writ of mandamus does not contain a certificate of service for respondent. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5.
Also, relator's petition does not contain the certification required by Rule 52.1(j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate procedure that requires that the person filing the petition must certify that he or she has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (j).
This Court has previously stated, that although we generously read a pro se litigant's petition in an original proceeding, that we will hold "the relator to the same procedural standards we apply to other litigants." Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).