Opinion
No. 07-14-00210-CV
06-16-2014
IN RE WILLIAM WALTER YOUNGSTROM, RELATOR
Original Proceeding Arising from the 355th District Court
Hood County, Texas
Trial Court No. 12355; Honorable Ralph H. Walton, Jr., Presiding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Relator, William Walter Youngstrom, proceeding pro se, files this mandamus proceeding complaining of Matthew A. Mills, his court-appointed appellate attorney in Youngstrom v. State, Cause Number 07-13-00385-CR. He alleges Mills refused to raise certain issues in his direct appeal which denied him effective assistance of counsel. We dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
This Court delivered its opinion and judgment affirming Relator's conviction for delivery of a controlled substance on June 9, 2014. See Youngstrom v. State, No. 07-13-00385-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6215, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 9, 2014, no pet. h.).
This Court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus necessary to enforce our jurisdiction, consistent with the principles of law regulating such a writ, against a judge of a district or county court in our district. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West 2004). An attorney representing an appellant on direct appeal is not within our jurisdictional reach. Furthermore, Relator has not demonstrated that issuance of a writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692-93 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.). Consequently, we have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against Matthew A. Mills.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice