1 

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00281-CR

NO. 09-22-00282-CR

NO. 09-22-00283-CR

__________________

ANTHONY RAY BANKS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 93-64255, 94-67286 and 94-67288

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Anthony Ray Banks was convicted and sentenced in Trial Cause Numbers 

64255, 67286 and 67288 in 1995. In 2021, Banks sought mandamus relief from the 

Court of Criminal Appeals, which directed the judge of the 252nd District Court of 

Jefferson County, Texas, to file a response stating, “whether or not Relator’s motion 

has properly and timely been presented to it; if so, whether it has been ruled on; and 

whether or not Relator’s trial attorney has provided Relator with copies of his client 
2

files.” See In re Banks, No. WR-80,275-05, 2021 WL 4448551, at *1 (Tex. Crim. 

App. Sept. 29, 2021) (order, not designated for publication). The Court of Criminal 

Appeals later denied leave to file the application for a writ of mandamus, and 

thereafter Banks sought mandamus relief in the 252nd District Court asking that 

court to compel the lawyer who represented him in Trial Cause Numbers 64255, 

67286, and 67288 to give Banks ninety-one pages of discovery the State of Texas 

shared with counsel in the criminal cases. The trial court issued an Order denying 

the requested mandamus relief. On May 25, 2022, the 252nd District Court noted 

that it lacked plenary power over the respective cases, that Banks failed to request 

or obtain service of citation on either his former attorney or the State, and that the 

trial court lacked the power to order Bank’s former attorney to take any action in the 

closed criminal cases.

We notified Banks that it appeared that we lacked jurisdiction over his 

appeals. In response, Banks filed a pro se response and he argued that he has invoked

this Court’s original mandamus jurisdiction. See generally Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. 

§ 22.221. 

It appears that Banks is attempting to obtain 91 pages from his former 

attorney’s file. According to the record now before us, the former attorney provided 
3

his client file to Banks but indicated he withheld the 91 pages because it contains the 

State’s discovery from the closed criminal cases.

1

Appeals in criminal cases are permitted only when they are specifically 

authorized by statute. State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2011) (orig. proceeding). Banks has not identified a statute that would permit 

him to pursue an appeal from the trial court’s May 25, 2022 Order denying his 

request for mandamus relief in Trial Cause Numbers 64255, 67286 and 67288. 

Because Banks is not challenging any order or judgment for which an appeal is 

statutorily authorized, we lack jurisdiction over these appeals. See Abbott v. State, 

271 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals 

for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

APPEALS DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on December 13, 2022

Opinion Delivered December 14, 2022

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

1 In her Order denying Banks’ application for mandamus relief, the trial court 

stated:

Thus, it appears that inmate-relator has obtained his client file, less 

State discovery material that [the] attorney [] is prohibited from 

disclosing. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 39.14(d), (f); Powell v. Hocker, 

516 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).