in Re: Jimmy Chanthavong
This text of in Re: Jimmy Chanthavong (in Re: Jimmy Chanthavong) 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 May 6, 2002
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________
NO. 01-02-00427-CV
IN RE JIMMY CHANTHAVONG, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
O P I N I O N
Relator, Jimmy Chanthavong, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining that an unnamed district judge (1) has failed and refused to forward his application for writ of habeas corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in accordance with Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07. He also complains that Attorney Michael Slider did not obey the trial court's order to respond to his application for article 11.07 relief.
Relator's petition for writ of mandamus is unsworn. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. It has not been served on the district judge, Attorney Slider, or any real party in interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5, 52.2. The petition does not contain copies of any documents filed in the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j)(1). Furthermore, this Court has previously held in In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding), that it has no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07. Id. at 718.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Cohen, Jennings, and Radack.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
1.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re: Jimmy Chanthavong, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jimmy-chanthavong-texapp-2002.