in Re Aaron Charles Hill
This text of in Re Aaron Charles Hill (in Re Aaron Charles Hill) 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 Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________
NO. 09-14-00317-CR ________________
IN RE AARON CHARLES HILL __________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Aaron Charles Hill filed a petition for writ of mandamus, in which
he complains that the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals failed to forward a copy
of his post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus to the Court of
Criminal Appeals.1 The Clerk of the Court of Appeals has no role in forwarding
post-conviction habeas petitions to the Court of Criminal Appeals; rather, the clerk
of the convicting court must transmit the application to the Court of Criminal
Appeals. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3(c) (West Supp. 2013). We
take judicial notice that the District Clerk of Jefferson County is Jane Birge, and
1 This Court recently affirmed the trial court’s judgments of conviction. Hill v. State, Nos. 09-13-00479-CR, 09-13-00480-CR, 2014 WL 3387383 (Tex. App.— Beaumont July 9, 2014, no pet. h.). 1 we consider this petition as if she had been named as the respondent. See Tex. R.
Evid. 201; Tex. R. App. P. 52.2.
Other than to protect our jurisdiction, this Court’s mandamus jurisdiction
does not extend to the District Clerk. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West
2004). The proceedings at issue are post-conviction matters that do not implicate
this Court’s jurisdiction. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3(a).
Mandamus relief in a post-conviction habeas proceeding must be obtained from the
Court of Criminal Appeals. In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we deny the petition for
writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on August 19, 2014 Opinion Delivered August 20, 2014 Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re Aaron Charles Hill, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-aaron-charles-hill-texapp-2014.