Andre Nathaniel Hamilton v. State
This text of Andre Nathaniel Hamilton v. State (Andre Nathaniel Hamilton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________
No. 07-13-0085-CV No. 07-13-0086-CV ________________________
In re Fernando Duarte, Relator
April 17, 2013
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Relator, Fernando Duarte, has filed petitions requesting writs of mandamus
directed at the District Clerk of Hemphill County, Texas, concerning his two criminal
convictions. Relator complains of the district clerk’s purported failure to transmit orders
and records to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State Jail Division regarding
jail credit earned and asks that we remedy the default via mandamus. We dismiss the
petitions.
Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited
circumstances. In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619, 623
(Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Texas Government Code § 22.221 expressly limits our jurisdiction to issue such relief to writs necessary to enforce our jurisdiction and writs
directed at specified district or county court judges within the appellate court’s district.
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West 2004). Consequently, unless necessary to
enforce our jurisdiction, we have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the
district clerk. In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, orig.
proceeding) (per curiam) (noting because a district clerk is not a judge, a relator must
show issuance of a writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the
court of appeals). Relator’s mandamus petitions do not claim, nor do they appear to
seek relief designed to enforce this court’s jurisdiction. Nor does the relief pertain to an
appeal wherein he is a party. Thus, we have no jurisdiction to direct the district clerk to
act.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petitions for want of jurisdiction.
Brian Quinn Chief Justice
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Andre Nathaniel Hamilton v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andre-nathaniel-hamilton-v-state-texapp-2013.