In Re Billy Bond v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Billy Bond v. the State of Texas (In Re Billy Bond 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
Opinion issued March 25, 2025
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00191-CR ——————————— IN RE BILLY BOND, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Billy Bond, incarcerated and proceeding pro se, filed a petition for
writ of mandamus requesting that this Court “direct[] the 198th District Court,
respondent, to release the [a]ppellate [r]ecord in Cause Number B96-229, styled The
State of Texas v. Billy Bond, in which relator is charged with [a]ggravated [s]exual
[assault].”
We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The State of Texas is divided into fifteen courts of appeals districts. This
Court’s district “is composed of the counties of Austin, Brazoria, Chambers,
Colorado, Fort Bend, Galveston, Grimes, Harris, Waller, and Washington.” TEX.
GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(a)-(b). The 198th District Court is located in Kerr
County, Texas. Kerr County is within the district of the Fourth Court of Appeals
located in San Antonio, Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(k).
This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of mandamus
seeking to compel an action by a trial court of a county not within this Court’s
district. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) (providing that courts of appeals
may issues writs of mandamus “against a judge of a district, statutory county,
statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district”); In re
Johnson, 279 S.W.3d 700, 701 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007, orig. proceeding)
(dismissing mandamus petition for lack of jurisdiction because relator sought relief
against trial court in county not within court of appeals’ district).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Caughey, and Morgan.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Billy Bond v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-billy-bond-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.