In Re D.M. v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00072-CV

IN RE D.M.

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef

MEMORANDUM OPINION

D.M.,1 proceeding pro se, has petitioned this Court for mandamus relief. D.M. argues that the Franklin County district clerk refused to file an appeal challenging D.M.’s requirements to register as a sex offender based on his attorney misleading him “to plea[d] guilty to registration as a sex offender.”2 This Court has limited mandamus jurisdiction. We may issue a writ of mandamus only against a judge of a district or county court in the Texas court of appeals district. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(c) (Supp.). That jurisdiction does not extend to other parties, such as district attorneys or district clerks, unless such mandamus relief would be necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a) (Supp.); see In re Shugart, 528 S.W.3d 794, 796 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, orig. proceeding). D.M. seeks a writ of mandamus against a district clerk, but we lack mandamus jurisdiction over the Franklin County district clerk. We find no present circumstance that would make a writ of mandamus issued against the clerk necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Lacking jurisdiction, we dismiss D.M.’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

Charles van Cleef

Justice

Date Submitted: November 5, 2024 Date Decided: November 6, 2024

1 D.M. included documents in his petition stating that he is seventeen years old. Out of an abundance of caution, this court will use his initials. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10. 2 D.M. does not raise any issues complaining of an action or inaction by the trial court.