In Re Stevie L. Stenson v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Stevie L. Stenson v. the State of Texas (In Re Stevie L. Stenson v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ———————————— No. 08-26-00229-CR ————————————
In re Stevie L. Stenson, Relator
AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS
M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N
Stevie L. Stenson, an individual confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-
Institutional Division, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t
Code § 22.221 (establishing intermediate appellate court writ of mandamus power); Tex. R.
App. P. 52.1 (discussing commencement of original proceedings in court of appeals). In his
petition, Stenson requests that this Court compel the Honorable Ruben Gonzalez, the presiding
judge of the 432nd District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, to make a finding pursuant to
Article 64.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.01. We
dismiss the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In 2012, this Court issued an opinion on the merits of Stenson’s direct appeal affirming the
trial court’s judgment. Stenson v. State, No. 08-11-00033-CR, 2012 WL 3364096, at *1, *7
(Tex. App.—El Paso Aug. 15, 2012, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). Although
Stenson’s appeal did not originate in our appellate district, the Texas Supreme Court ordered his
appeal transferred to us from the Second Court of Appeals pursuant to its docket equalization
efforts. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 73.001.
Stenson’s present petition for writ of mandamus is an original appellate proceeding, which
is different from his direct appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. This Court has the authority to issue
writs of mandamus against a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or
county court in the Eighth Court of Appeals district as well as all writs necessary to enforce our
appellate jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(a), (b). Tarrant County is in the Second Court of
Appeals District, not within our appellate district. Compare id. § 22.201(c) (listing the counties
making up the Second District), with id. § 22.201(i) (listing the counties located within the Eighth
District). In addition, because Stenson’s “underlying criminal case that was before us is long since
final, there is no action that we need take to enforce our own jurisdiction.” In re Franco, No. 08-
24-00127-CR, 2024 WL 2279207, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso May 20, 2024, orig. proceeding)
(mem. op.) (citing In re Jackson, No. 08-21-00033-CV, 2021 WL 732857, at *2 (Tex. App.—El
Paso Feb. 25, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing a
petition for writ of mandamus for this same reason)).
Because the Second Court of Appeals rather than this Court is the appellate court with
jurisdiction over such a petition, we dismiss Stenson’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. See Franco, 2024 WL 2279207, at *1.
2 LISA J. SOTO, Justice
June 10, 2026
Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ. (Do Not Publish)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Stevie L. Stenson v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stevie-l-stenson-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp8-2026.