in Re: Antonio C. Munoz

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 8, 2010
Docket13-10-00048-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re: Antonio C. Munoz (in Re: Antonio C. Munoz) 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.

Bluebook
in Re: Antonio C. Munoz, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion



NUMBER 13-10-00048-CR



COURT OF APPEALS



THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG



IN RE ANTONIO C. MUÑOZ


On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion (1)

Relator, Antonio C. Muñoz, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in this Court, complaining that the respondent, Laura Hinojosa, the District Clerk of Hidalgo County, Texas, has not forwarded documents related to an article 11.07 writ of habeas corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2008); see also In re Escareno, 297 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

This Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over district clerks unless it is shown that issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004); In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding); see also In re Nubine, No. 13-08-507-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6534, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi Aug. 27, 2008, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op). Moreover, while courts of appeals have mandamus jurisdiction in criminal matters, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 § 3 (Vernon Supp. 2008); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction to consider this matter. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).



PER CURIAM



Do not publish.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



Delivered and filed the 8th

day of February, 2010.



1. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Coronado
980 S.W.2d 691 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
In Re Washington
7 S.W.3d 181 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
In Re McAfee
53 S.W.3d 715 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
In Re Escareno
297 S.W.3d 288 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re: Antonio C. Munoz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-antonio-c-munoz-texapp-2010.