In Re Andrew Iyekekpolo v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Andrew Iyekekpolo v. the State of Texas (In Re Andrew Iyekekpolo v. the State of Texas) 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. 09-25-00271-CV __________________
IN RE ANDREW IYEKEKPOLO
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding Justice Court, Precinct 3 of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24CV3-004958 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Andrew Iyekekpolo filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a
motion for temporary relief. The Respondent is the presiding judge of the Justice
Court, Precinct 3 of Montgomery County.
The Texas Constitution provides that the Courts of Appeals have original and
appellate jurisdiction to extent provided by law. Tex. Const. art. V, § 6. Section
22.221 of the Texas Government Code authorizes an appellate court to issue a writ
of mandamus against (1) a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate
county, or county court in our district; (2) a judge of a district court who is acting as
1 a magistrate at a court of inquiry under Chapter 52 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure in our district; or (3) an associate judge of a district or county court
appointed by a judge under Chapter 201 of the Texas Family Code in our district for
the judge who appointed the associate judge. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b)-(c).
Additionally, this court may issue all writs necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. Id.
§ 22.221(a).
Relator seeks mandamus relief against a justice of the peace. Section 22.221
excludes judges of the justice courts as persons over whom this court can exercise
mandamus jurisdiction. See id. § 22.221(b)-(c). Iyekekpolo has not demonstrated
that issuing a writ for the requested relief is necessary to enforce this Court’s
jurisdiction. See id. § 22.221(a).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of
jurisdiction and dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PETITION DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on July 30, 2025 Opinion Delivered July 31, 2025
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Andrew Iyekekpolo v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-andrew-iyekekpolo-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.