### 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. 03-14-00312- CV

In re Cather ine L. Marston, P h.D.

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Catherine L
. Marston, an inmate in the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice, has filed a pro se petition for writ of manda mus in thi s Court raising sever al complaints related t o her 2005 convictions for burgl ar y o f a h abit ation and violation of a protec tive order
. See Marston v. State , No. 11-05-00358- CR, 2007 W L3197743 (Tex. A pp.—Eastland Nov. 1, 2007, pet. re f’d) (mem. op., not desig nated fo r p ub l i cation) (af firming Marston’s convictions). In her mandamus 1 petition, Marston ch all eng es her convictions on a number of g rounds and reque sts that this Court “grant habea s relief

: rele ase and exoneration.” Marston also appea rs to asser t that the district cler

k has fa iled to provide her

with complete copie s of the cle rk’s rec ord and repor ter’s rec ord from her criminal proc eedingdespite the fa ct that Marston ha s alleg edly paid for the se re cords. To the extent that Marston’s petition appea rs to be a post-conviction application for writ of habe as cor

pus, we lac k jurisdiction to consider it. An intermediate court of appea ls ha s no

Marston’s direc t appea l from these co n victions was transfe rre d from this Court to the 1 Eleventh Court of Appea ls as part of the Texas Supreme Court’s docket- equalization activities. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 73.001.jurisdiction over post-conviction ap p lications for writ of habea s corpus in felony case s. See

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07; see also Ex parte Martinez , 1 7 5 S
. W
. 3d 510, 512–13 (Tex. App.—Tex ar kana 2005, orig
. proce eding ); Self v. State , 122 S.W .3d 294, 294–95 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2003, no pet.). The court of criminal appea ls has re co gn i z ed that “the exclusive post-conviction reme dy in final felony convictions in Texas courts is throug h writ of habea s corpus pursuant to [article] 1 1
. 0 7
. ” Ol i vo v. State , 918 S.W .2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (quoting Charles v. Sta t e , 8 0 9 S
. W .2d 574, 576 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1991, no pet.)). Ther ef o re, to the extent that Marston seeks an order from this Court to vacate her previous convictions, we la ck the jurisdiction to g rant such r elief.

Simi larly , to the extent Marston’s petition seeks an order to compel the district cler k to provide her with com plete copies of the cler k’s rec ord and repor

ter’s rec ord from her criminal trial, Marston has failed to demonstrate that we have jurisdiction to issue such an order
. This Court’s mandamus jurisdiction is g overne d by section 22
. 2 2 1 o f t h e Texas Gover nment Code. Section 22.221 expres s l y limit s our m andamus jurisdi ction to: (1) writs ag ainst a dis trict court judge or a county court judge in this Court’s district, an d (2 ) al l writ s nece ssary to enfor ce this Court’s jurisdiction. Tex . Gov’t Code § 22.221. A dist rict cle rk is not, of course , a district cour t judge or county court judg e. Nor

is the issuance of

a wr it ag ainst the district clerk in this ca se nec essar y to enfor ce this Court’s jurisdiction. See In re Strickhausen , 994 S.W. 2 d 9 36, 936 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, ori g . proce eding ). Acc ording ly , Marston’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismiss ed for

want of jurisdiction.

2_______________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore J ustices Puryear , Pemberton, and F ield Filed: August 13, 2014

3