alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NO. 12-08-00135-CR NO. 12-08-00136-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEX AS

§ I N RE : M I CH AE L KE N N ED Y, RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEE DING §
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Michae l Kennedy

seeks ha beas r elief f

rom this court alleg ing tha t his bond is excessive. He also seeks a

writ of m andamus requiring the di strict cler k to file hi s application for writ of habe as corpus a nd motion to di smiss counsel, w hich he alleg es wer e proper ly tender ed but not a cce pted for filing by the cler k. We dismi ss for wa

nt of jurisdiction. The orig inal habea s jurisdiction of the courts of appea ls is li mited to those cases in whic h a person' s liberty

is restraine d beca

use the pe rson has violated a n order , judgme nt, or dec ree enter ed in a civil case . T EX
. G OV ' T C ODE ANN
. § 22.221(d) ( Ver non 2004). Stated anothe r wa y , courts of appea ls do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal l aw matters. See id . Be cause the underlying c ause is a criminal case , we are without jurisdiction to g rant the reque sted habe as re lief. Although c ourts of appe als may issue writs of mandamus, the T ex as L eg islature has not confe rre d on courts of a

ppeals such a

uthority g ener ally

. Eac h court of appea ls or j ustice of a court of appe als may

issue writs of mandamus to enforc e the jurisdiction of the c ourt. T EX
. G OV ' T C ODE A NN
. § 2 2

. 2 2 1 ( a ) ( V e r

n o n 2 0 0 4 )

. A ls o , e a c h c o u rt o f a p p e a ls f o r a c o u rt o f a

p p e a ls d is tr ict may issue writs of mandamus ag ainst a judge of a district or c ounty court in the c ourt of appe als district or the judg e of a

district court who is ac ting a s a mag istrate at a court of inquiry under Chapter 52, Code of Criminal Proc edure , in the court of appea ls district. Id

. § 22.221(b). Be cause Kenne dy has2

not shown that a writ of m andamus ag ainst the di strict cler k is nece ssary to enfor ce our jurisdiction,
we a re w ithout authority

to gr ant this relief. Kenne dy ’s applica tion for writ of h ab ea s co rpus and petition for writ of mandamus a re dism issed for want of ju risdiction

.

JA M ES T. WOR THEN Chief J ustice
Opinion delivere d May

21, 2008. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)