In Re Joe Marr Wilson, Relator v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 26, 2024
• Docket: 07-24-00103-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00103-CR

IN RE JOE MARR WILSON, RELATOR

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

March 26, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

On March 25, 2024, Relator Joe Marr Wilson filed his petition for writ of mandamus

with this Court seeking our issuance of a writ of mandamus finding that Respondent, the

Honorable Ana E. Estevez, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Ninth Administrative

Judicial Region, abused her discretion by affirming the trial court’s order, which paid only

part of Relator’s requested attorney’s fees in relation to his appellate representation in

Stanberry v. State, No. 07-23-00194-CR, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 1066 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo Feb. 9, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We dismiss

the petition for want of jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction to issue mandamus is limited by statute. See TEX. GOV’T CODE

ANN. § 22.221(a), (b). Generally, we may only issue writs of mandamus against a district

or county judge in our judicial district or when necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Id.

Nothing in Relator’s petition suggests the issuance of the requested writ relates to our

jurisdiction over a pending cause.

While we judicially notice that the Honorable Ana E. Estevez presides over the

251st District Court of Potter and Randall Counties, Relator’s writ is not directed at her in

that capacity. Instead, his petition explicitly seeks relief against her actions taken in her

capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Ninth Administrative Judicial Region. It is clear

from Relator’s petition that he does not challenge her rulings in her capacity as a district

judge but, rather, as the presiding regional administrative judge for the Ninth

Administrative Region. We lack authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a judge

acting in that capacity. See In re Hettler, 110 S.W.3d 152, 154 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003,

orig. proceeding); accord In re Cook, 394 S.W.3d 668, 671 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, orig.

proceeding) (concluding that the court “lack[ed] mandamus jurisdiction against a regional

presiding judge”).

Because we lack authority to grant the relief sought by Relator, we dismiss his

petition for writ of mandamus, expressing no opinion on the merits.

Judy C. Parker Justice

Do not publish.