### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00424- CR

David Cepeda Jones, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B EXAR COUNTY , 227 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 200 9-CR- 1290 2, TH E H ONO RAB LE P HI LIP A. K AZ EN, JR., J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant David Cepeda J o nes, acting pro se, filed a document with this Court entitled “Rule § 16.3(c) Noti ce of Appea l/Affidavit/Emerg ency Transf er of Venue and All Future Procee dings Rules § 17.2 and 17.3 (Refusing to Act).” As we r ead his doc ument, appellant r aises issues in connec tion with his appea l from matters rela ted to a criminal case pending in a district court of Be x ar County

. The pleading ref ere nces a cause number in the Four th Court of Appea ls, and complains about the failure of the Four th Court of Appea ls to g rant him a rehe ar i n g i n his case

as well as the denial of his m o t i o n s fo r recusal wher ein he reque sted that ever y justice on the Four th Court of Appea ls recuse himself or her self.

This Court’s appellate jurisdiction g ener ally is l i m i t ed to case s appea led from trial courts in our court of appea ls district, which does not include Be x ar County

. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.201 (West Supp. 2010). We see no basis for jurisdiction over an appea l of matters arising outof a Be x ar County district c ourt or over actions taken by the Four th Court of Appea ls, a

nd nothing in the documents appellant has filed demonstrates we otherwise have authority to g rant any relief he seeks. See Olivo v. State , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. C ri m. App. 1996) (listing Gover nment Code § 22.201 among examples of laws that establish jurisdiction of cour ts of appea ls). To any extent that appellant’ s pleading s could be rea d as initiating an o ri g inal appellate proce eding seeking extraordinary relief , see Tex. R. App. P. 52, we n o t e that our mandamus authority also is limit ed. By statute, this Court has the authority t o i s s u e a writ of mandamus aga inst “a judge of a d i s t ri ct o r county court in the court of appeals di strict” and other writs as nece ssary to enfor ce our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2010). The Four

th Court of Appea ls is not a party ag ainst whom we m ay i s s u e a wr i t of mandamus. Nor has appellant demonstrated that the exercise of our writ power is necessary to enfor ce our

jurisdiction as we ha ve no appe llate jurisdiction over the F ourth Court of Appea ls. Appellant’s documents indirectly ref er to R u l e 17.1 of the Rules of Appellate Procedur e, which conce rns instances in which a court of appea ls is unable to take immediate action, and direc tly ref

er to Rule 17.2, which provides for action by “the near est court of appea ls that is able to take immediate a ction,” and Rule 17.3 which re lates to furthe r proc eeding s by the nea rest cour t of appea ls. See Tex. R. App. P. 17.1, 17.2, 17.3. Appellant appea rs to contend that Rule 17 applies h er e. Ap pellant’s pleading s, howeve r, discuss actions taken by the Four th Court of Appeal s , which demonstrates conclusively that Rule 17 of t he appellate rules h as n o ap plication here

. The Four th C o u rt i s not unable to take immediate action and has, in fac t, taken action. Appellant

2is mere ly dissatisfied with the actions taken. We do not have appellate jurisdiction over the

Four th Court of Appea ls.

Finding we lack jurisdiction to addre ss appellant’ s pleading s, we dis m i s s his attempted appe al.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Jul y

11, 2012 Do Not Publish

3