James Matthew Rogers v. State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 1, 2002
• Docket: 06-01-00086-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-01-00086-CR

JAMES MATTHEW ROGERS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 115th Judicial District Court

Upshur County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12,473

Before Grant, Ross, and Cornelius,* JJ.

Opinion by Justice Grant

______________

*William J. Cornelius, Chief Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment

O P I N I O N

James Matthew Rogers appeals from his conviction for sexual assault of a minor, J.J. This case was tried together with a charge of aggravated sexual assault of a minor, E.B. Rogers was convicted by a jury in both cases, and the judge assessed punishment at twenty years' imprisonment on each offense, to run concurrently. Both cases are currently before this court on appeal.

The same brief was filed for both appeals. Because the arguments raised and the facts on which those arguments are based are identical, for the reasons stated in Rogers v. State, cause number 06-01-00085-CR, we likewise resolve the issues in this appeal in favor of the State.

The judgment is affirmed.

Ben Z. Grant

Justice

Date Submitted: June 3, 2002

Date Decided: August 1, 2002

Do Not Publish

ed="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>

                                                         In The

                                                Court of Appeals

                        Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                                                             No. 06-10-00123-CV

                                                                        IN RE:

MICHAEL KENNEDY

                                                     Original Mandamus Proceeding

                                          Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

                                              Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

                                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Michael Kennedy filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Twelfth Court of Appeals.  By order of the Texas Supreme Court, that mandamus has been transferred to this Court for decision. 

            In his petition, Kennedy asks this Court to issue an order directing a trial court clerk and the deputy clerk of the Twelfth Court of Appeals to file his notices of appeal and asks that the deputy clerk to “deny not to file other motions” and to “stop using case number 12-08-00246-CR when case is 12-10-00297-CR.” 

            As best we are able to discern from the petition, Kennedy complains that his notice of appeal in trial court cause number 4-41298, styled Michael Kennedy v. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, et al., was rejected for filing in the trial court and in the Twelfth Court of Appeals.  It also appears that Kennedy complains that a series of motions were rejected for filing by the Tyler deputy clerk in two specified cause numbers because it is alleged that the deputy clerk mistakenly referenced the wrong cause number.  Attached to Kennedy’s petition are copies of two notices of appeal of trial court cause number 4-41298.  Also attached is a letter from the Anderson County District Clerk indicating that this matter was dismissed by order of the trial court on September 28, 2010.  Finally, Kennedy has attached to the petition a letter from the Tyler deputy clerk indicating that a mandate issued in Kennedy’s appeal in cause number 12-08-00246-CR on April 30, 2010. 

            The mandamus jurisdiction of this Court is limited by statute.  We have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district.”  Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon 2004).  As we are sitting in the place of the Twelfth Court of Appeals, our jurisdiction in the instant case provides us with authority to issue mandamus to a judge of a district or county court within the territorial bounds of the Twelfth Appellate District.

            Here, it does not appear that relief has been sought against any individual over whom we have general mandamus authority.  Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to provide the relief requested.^[1]

            We deny the petition for issuance of writ of mandamus.

                                                                                    Jack Carter

Date Submitted:          December 1, 2010      

Date Decided:             December 2, 2010

---

^[1]Even if we were to construe Kennedy’s petition as seeking relief against the trial court, which has not clearly been requested, we have not been provided with a sufficient record or argument to determine the merit of such a request.  See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992).