NO. 07-08 -004 2-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JAN UA RY

23, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ In re J ER RY

D ALE J EN KIN S, Relato r

_________

_________

_________

______ Memorandum Opinion on Original Proc eedi ng fo r Writ of M

andamus

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Pen ding before the co urt is a d ocum entf iled by Jerr y Dale Jenkins e ntitled “Req uest for App ell ate R ecord s[ ,] Cl er k’ s F il e D ock et S heet, C ler k’ s C our t D ock et S heet, and the Minute s Read an d Signed, a nd the O rder of Ca ses Furnishe d W ithou t Charge.” The rein he c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt den ied hi s re q uest for a re tur n of hi s proper ty and as ks that
w e “grant[his] mo ti o n . . . and . . . enter an order directing the Cou nty . . . and Distri ct Atto rn ey and Sher iff to forth w it h retur n s aid Proper ty to Jer ry D ale Jenki ns. ” F urther more, he request s thatw e “order the Hall C oun ty District C lerk . . . [to] provide true an d correct copi es of ev er

y sp eci fic d ocument s [ si c] re q uest e d a n d l eg al document s p ertai nin g to caus e numbers: 3247 an d 3248.

. . free of charg e, . . . . ” W e deny the re q uest s for

the followi ng reasons.2

Fi rs t, to the ex tent thatJenki ns is att empti ng to mandamus the d is tr ic t c ler k i n order to ob tai n a fr ee record, w e lack authori ty

to do so. Cou rt s o f appeals may onl y i ss ue w ri ts of man damus 1) ag ai ns t a di s tr i c t or c ou nty c ou rt j ud g e w i th i n th e c ou rt’ s di s tr i ct or a dis tr ic t c our

t j udg e w ho i s a cti ng as a mag is trate a t a cour t of i nq uir

y under C hapter 52 o f the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re w it h in the cour t’ s d is tr ic t and 2) to preser v e i ts jur is dic ti on. T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . §22.221 (Ve rn on Supp. 1999). Si nce ithas not been all eg ed th at the d is tr ic t c ler k i s a cti ng as a j udg e s ubj ectto our mandamus pow ers o r that the w ri t i s n eces sar

y to preser

v e our j ur is dic tio n o ver

a pe ndi ng appeal , w e hav e no aut hority to g rant th e relief requested . Th e sam e w ould be true of t he relief

sought against the c ounty

and dis tr ic t at tor ney s a nd th e s her iff. Se co n d , t o th e exte n t t h a t J e n kin s is a lso a sk in g fo r m a n d a m u s aga in st th e ju d ge to directthe re tur n of

his pro per

ty , the rul es of procedu re obli g ate one seeki ng su ch re li ef to ac companyhi s p eti ti on w it h an appendi x . T EX . R. A PP . P. 52 .3(j). The latter mu st inc lud e, among othe r thi ng s, a certi fied or sw or n copy of the documentshow ing the matter compl ain ed of. I n thi s c ase, the documentshow ing the matter complai ned of

w oul d be the moti on pur por

tedl y req uest ing hi s p ro per

ty
. Y et, itw as not a ppended to hi s d ocument
. W e al so note other

i nst ances of his fail ure to compl y wit h the appl ic abl e r ule s o f procedu re . For

ex ample, hi s a ppl ic ati on l ack s 1 ) a s ect ion i denti fyi ng t h e p a rt ies and couns el, 2) a tabl e of

contents , 3) an index

of authori ti es, 4) a s tatementof the c ase, and 5) a s tatementof the i ss ues pr e se n te d

. T h o se are req uired to be i ncl uded i n a p eti ti on seek ing extraordin ar

y reli ef. T EX . R. A PP . P

. 52 .3

. An d , th a t J e n kin s m a y be ac ti n g pro se does n o t re liev e hi m of compl y ing w it h tho se re q uirements
. Holt v. F.F. Ente rs. , 990 S.W .2d 756 , 759 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 1998 , pet . den ied).3

Third, t o the extent that Jenk ins ask s us to g ra nt the moti ons to retur n hi s p ro per ty and to provide a f ree appellat e record, we canno t do th at. Our au tho rity doe s not pe rmit us to ad jud ic ate a matter pendi ng in a tr ial cour t w it hout the tr ial cour

t firs t ac ti ng upon it

. See O ’ Don niley v. Golden, 8 6 0 S. W .2 d 2 6 7 , 2 6 9 (T e x. Ap p .– T yler 19 9 3 , o rig. pro ce e d in g) (w hen a trial court has yet to act, aut hority en titles us only to order the trial court to act; it does not a ll ow

us to tel l the t ri al cour

t w hat d eci si on to make)

. Acc ordin g ly , J enki ns’ “ Req uestfor Ap pel lat e R ecords, C ler k’ s F il e D ock et S heet, Cler k’ s C our

t D ock et S heet, and the M inu tes R ead and Si g ned, and t he Order of Cas es Fur nis hed w it hout Cha rg e” moti on/doc ument i s d eni ed.

Br ian Qui nn C hie f Just ic e