Howard G. Green

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 14, 2004
• Docket: 01-04-00939-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued October 14, 2004

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-04-00939-CR

IN RE HOWARD GUS GREEN, Relator

---

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Relator, Howard Gus Green, filed a motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus, a motion for declaration of inability to pay costs, and a petition for writ of mandamus. The motions for leave to file and for declaration of inability to pay costs are granted. We deny the petition.

               Relator requests that this Court compel the Harris County District Clerk to provide him with the appellate record and other items related to his conviction in cause number 774479 in the 180th District Court of Harris County.

               We have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus against a district court judge or county court judge in our district, and we may issue all writs necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004).

               However, we have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless such is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding); Summit Savings Ass'n v. Garcia, 727 S.W.2d 106, 107 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1987, orig. proceeding). Relator appealed his conviction in cause number 774479, and this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Green v. State, No. 01-98-01283-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication).

               Relator seeks the documents in question from the district clerk “to pursue constitutions [sic] violations in cause no. 774479 through an appeal via writ of habeas corpus . . . .” We have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. See 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); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d at 692; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3 (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). 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.

               It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Jennings, and Bland.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).