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 No s. 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, Bank s s ou ght mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Ap peals, which d irected 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 client2 files. ” See In re Banks , No. WR

- 8 0 ,275

- 0 5 , 2021 WL 4448551, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 29, 2021) (order, not designated for publication). T he Court of C riminal Appeal s later denied l eave 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 S t a t e , a n d that the trial court lacked the power to order Bank’s former attorney t o take any action in the closed cr i minal case s . We notified Banks that it a ppeared that we lacked jurisdiction over his appeals. In response, Banks filed a pro se response and he argued that he has invoke d 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, t he former attorney provided3 his client file to Banks but indicated he withheld the 91 pages because it contain s 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 O rder denying his request for mandamus relief in Trial Cause Numbers 64255, 67286 and 67288

. B ecause B anks i s not challenging any order or jud gment for which an appeal is statutorily authorized, we lack jurisdiction over th e s e appeal s . 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).
APPEAL S 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. Pro c. Art. 39.14(d), (f); Powell v. Hocker , 516 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).