in Re Roy E. Addicks, Jr.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 12, 2009
Docket14-09-00127-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Roy E. Addicks, Jr. (in Re Roy E. Addicks, Jr.) 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.

Bluebook
in Re Roy E. Addicks, Jr., (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 12, 2009

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 12, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-09-00127-CR

NO. 14-09-00128-CR

IN RE ROY E. ADDICKS, JR., Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

On February 4, 2009, relator, Roy E. Addicks, Jr., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court.  See Tex. Gov=t Code Ann '22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.1.  In the petition, relator complains that the respondent, Georgetta Mattox, Court Reporter of the 183rd District Court of Harris County, refuses to prepare and send relator a copy of the record of the trial on his underlying convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child, for the purpose of filing an application for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. 


A court of appeals has the authority to issue writs of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals= district and all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals= jurisdiction.  Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 22.221(b).  The respondent, Georgetta Mattox, is neither a district nor county court judge.  Moreover, relator has not shown that the exercise of our mandamus authority against the respondent is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction because only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to final post-conviction felony proceedings.  Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding).  Therefore, we have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against the respondent. 

Because we do not have jurisdiction, the petition for writ of mandamus is ordered dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Boyce. 

Do Not PublishCTex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals
802 S.W.2d 241 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Roy E. Addicks, Jr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-roy-e-addicks-jr-texapp-2009.