In Re Michael Ratliff v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 9, 2025
• Docket: 01-25-00956-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued December 9, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00956-CR ——————————— IN RE MICHAEL RATLIFF, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael Ratliff, incarcerated and acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ of

mandamus (1) claiming that the copy of the record he received during the appeal of

his now final conviction was incomplete and (2) requesting that we compel the

Harris County District Clerk to send Ratliff “a complete copy of the appellate clerk’s

record.”1 We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Michael Ratliff, cause number 1522186, in the 179th District Court of Harris County, Texas. On March 2, 2020, Ratliff was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to

life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Ratliff’s appointed

counsel filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record

presents no reversible error and that, therefore, the appeal is without merit and is

frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Pursuant to an order from

our Court, the district clerk provided Ratliff with a copy of the record on October

26, 2020. Ratliff subsequently filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.

On February 12, 2022, our Court issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s

judgment and granting counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Ratliff v. State, No. 01-

20-00337-CR, 2022 WL 479909, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 17,

2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Ratliff filed a motion for

rehearing on March 3, 2022, that our Court denied on April 14, 2022. Our mandate

issued on June 22, 2022, and Ratliff’s conviction became final. See Beal v. State, 91

S.W.3d 794, 796 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (conviction becomes final when appellate

court issues its mandate affirming conviction).

On November 17, 2025—almost two and a half years after his conviction

became final—Ratliff filed the present petition for writ of mandamus requesting that

we compel the district clerk to send documents Ratliff claims should have been

included in the copy of the appellate record he received in October 2020.

2 This Court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by Section 22.221 of the

Texas Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221. A court of appeals may

issue writs of mandamus against (1) a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory

probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district; (2) a judge of a district

court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under Chapter 52 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure in the court of appeals district; or (3) an associate judge of a

district or county court appointed by a judge under Chapter 201 of the Family Code

in the court of appeals district for the judge who appointed the associate judge. Id.

§ 22.221(b). The courts of appeals also may issue all writs necessary to enforce the

court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Id. § 22.221(a).

We have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk

unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d

181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (holding that court

of appeals has no jurisdiction to issue writ of mandamus against district clerk unless

necessary to enforce its jurisdiction). Ratliff has not claimed or shown that the

requested relief is necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of our Court.

Here, there is no jurisdiction for our Court to enforce because Ratliff’s

conviction is final, and no appeal is pending in this Court. Any relief related to

Ratliff’s conviction can only be granted by a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus.

Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction

3 felony proceedings, which are governed by Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07; Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519,

525 n. 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court

of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re

McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig.

proceeding). “Courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of

habeas corpus in felony cases. Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of

appeals.” In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,

orig. proceeding) (internal citations omitted).

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Any pending

motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Gunn, and Caughey.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).