Ward, Jeffrey Lynn

Opinion

·CAUSE 11 Ci65(t.)~

l s· ( In Re .Jeffrev L.·ward- <; In THE. CD\J'RT . Rela+of" v. ( . OF Ho~\J. DWIC H·t L· PHlrER s Cf\'IIV1ltJ AL APPEAL~ ResPcindavrl- (

RElAfORS PETITIO\\) fOR WRIT OF-MANDAMVs ~-

. Ll5-\ o-f Parties Tria I Co l)(+5 Dl strt"c:t lb DGE: Je-t·fr~ L. ·vvarl tt lJt\J .. DW!blir L. PHI;F"ER - \

Resp·ot'do.vrt- i' Vf'l r1n(: Vo~it .i8~o-FA1lSl1 \ · H votsvi e1 TX· '77 -:54q Relator rro ~e

Into ·the LDURT DfCRit1\tN-AL~PE:J\LS COW\E's how_ - Je~re'f L- Wa.·rd I reQ.ues-\-i 1)9 +h.is Wr~+ ot ;1) Af\JbAMVS fro·M Writ 1\lo·f::tq~(<:l.Jn the .11\l:O .t>~ ,c~~~O,l: CHERoKEE CoonJr'1.1 ·Qt RUS~tfEXFtS.

RECENEfi ~~ COURT OF CRIIlllll\lAL APPEALS

JUN 24 2a15

Abet Acosta, Clerk TABLE CE CD}Jif.NIS A1 Puge i- Lists; ident',e5 of Par~t~ :A\ Pa.· RESel\Ffto.J MC.J~JP.~~m.u.s,j·w•~H.i_s~e\ · \\. \:\ '\ STPt1£MENr oF·F'Auts~ Ho\J,ha eX Pe\-thof\. \\ \\ '' ARG\JEMf:N:T._ Re\cr\-or(ha~-\-\1e !?l:lme ra'a~rt~ £16 other Pek-\-t-oner(g; cta:>! . ',, ,, '\\ P'({ft~£R_~ to ComPel-· lO a.ccorda\';\{'e wt\\.t )nw· AT Pooe l3)- (.£ RUtiC Ali ln\1; APPa\nrt ~ Cert i1'i ca.ie of 5e.r\hoce·~

. INDEX OF AUTHDR1fiE5 .I

B('ax.to() V· DvnV\ I Bo~ s,.,\JD lpl-~:19,/310 {T~~ ~r,. A·l?f,•l-qCJ:L. fbf2.) T£~. CODE. CR1:rvt ffioc..cAN\Vi ur+.·u~o1§~ .1;5{\Ve.s\- fjL)pp Jo\4) ' • ' ' ~ .1' • •

' . :. Pg~(1)

PaJ i eu Va Court of APPeals ofTex.,i fi{~ Da:st.·3q;t S~W.~J \\!l.~tl?- 1

IS ( T~.er.·m. 1\ PP· ~or3), pg (4 RVlt El~3k\)(3) IT. R.A.R , ~ • • ~ j J ;~(l)' • ' : • ·I ,, •i I' ....

S~~TE €'X ~e\ Y~~NG V. Si~ Di'"~t, r~o.u.rt:~~ Appea~s . ) • ·: .P13(1) l"3~ 5,\AJ~ 3d 101;~\D[T~··Cru'"' App,_~D7) ( or~g.Pr«eedia,~). I 55 U£.5 PB£5£\\l'tf.D __ Se.e Brax-ion v. buo;i'\,B03 S,vJQ:Jcl :3\·B;"3:lo(Tex.o(}, ltf'~,j.q~j\. Mandnmvs vv6 U ·assue where there is b~ one ProPec ord~i-o he. enieredv _ .A PRE.\\) D'IX.' ---- Rel~ has need for ibn-e-. Page ot Joc.vmen+eJ evideYGe to hel.P ~P\QtV\ the ..foptoote. See ff>th\h;t(A),

_C E BtrFfCA:tE Of SERVl('E , B" M'/ hand 1 do swenrtha\ a iTo~ u~ ea-red Cc:JPil ~ th!tS ..Porego·)),g d&t,:rf()ent Was MO\i Ieel io -the \-lon,qJvdQe DWJ:"G l-\J _L. j\Ht--~t;R !J\:f\1 the ProP(!r Posfc:\9~ ~ tta.<:l\~~) . +o the -J.tJD J VD'IC!RL .DISTRict CDOe.T Df QtaloK.E<: (OUtrfl/ 1/ a+ 1'35 s. IV'loh~ :S+·) p,o,Bo>C J..87i R'U!SK/TX·~ 75_7S5·lAiW to M£. RACHf:L L, Plt1To~, Pf5+riG+ ffitotne"', f,o>Box45t> R aJsK ,T;x., ·75795 an th"•~ -4-l\e ~ J..Cl.\J ~Xuoe~ ,lbl~~ •

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT.

JUNE 3, 2015

NO. 12-15-00142-CR

JEFFREY L. WARD, Relator v. ' HON. DWIGHT L. PHIFER, Respondent

Appeal from the 2nd District Court of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 11965(c)) \

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petitio~ for writ of mandamus· filed by JEFFREY L. WARD; who is the relator ip Cause No. 11965(c), pending on the docket of the ' ~ '.,.

2nd Judicial Dis.trict Court of Cherokee County, Texas. Said petition fo~ Wl"it of mandamus having"'been filed herein on June 1, 2015, and the same having been duly cons~dered, because it . ~ '. is the opinion of this Court that this court does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus in this proceeding and that it should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyl~~i· and Neeley, J. '!.

' -.