in Re Raymond Scott Vann
Opinion
Opinion issued March 31, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
legal authority to detain [him] has expired” and that his “continued incarceration . . . is in violation of the trial court’s judgment and legal authority.” We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus.
This Court lacks jurisdiction over relator’s request that we “order the [C]lerk of this Court to obtain trial court records.” TEX. GOV'T CODE § 22.221. This Court also lacks jurisdiction over relator’s request for release in light of his “good time credits.” See In re Skinner, No. 01-03-00285-CV, 2003 WL 1740479, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 3, 2003, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“[T]his Court has no mandamus jurisdiction over the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.”); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE § 501.0081; Ex parte Palomo, 759 S.W.2d 671, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (“This Court has previously refused to consider matters such as loss of good time credit, disciplinary proceedings and inmate classification . . . . The Department of Corrections provides procedures by which inmates may seek formal review of complaints relating to the terms and conditions of their imprisonment.” (internal citation omitted)).
Thus, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Landau, Hightower, and Countiss. Do not publish.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
in Re Raymond Scott Vann (in Re Raymond Scott Vann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.