### 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. 03-10-00209- CV

In re Tony Cervante s

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM MI LAM CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

P ER CURIAM

Tony Cerv an t es h as filed a Motion for L eave of Court seeking to require the

district cler

k of Milam County to pr ovide him with cer tain documents in or der to pr epar e his postconviction petition for writ of habea s corpus. Cervante s’s motion is essentially a petition for writ of

mandamus ag ainst the district cler k. As discussed by the San Antonio court o f ap p ea l s , we lack 1

jurisdiction to provide the relief Cervante s reque sts:

Our mandamus jurisdiction is quite limit ed. By statutory g ran t , courts of appea ls h av e au t h o rity to issue writs of mandamus ag ainst a district court judge o r county court judge in the court of appea ls district, and all writs n ec es s ar y to enfor ce its jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a)
, (b) (Ve rnon 1988). Clearly
, a district cler

k is not a judge

. Thus, in order for a district cler k to fall within

Cervan t es en t itles the document a Mot ion for L eave of C ourt, but the relief requested is 1 in the nature of a writ of mandamus issued ag ainst the district cler k. “I n deter mining the nature of

a filing, we look to the subs t an ce o f [t he] document, not mere ly its title.” Hall v. Hubco, Inc. , 2 9 2 S .W.3d 22, 35 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (citing Rush v. B a r r i o s , 56 S.W .3d 88, 93 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) ); see Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel , 997 S.W .2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999).our jurisdictional rea ch, it must be shown that the issuance of the writ of mandamus

i s nece ssary to enfor ce our jurisdiction. See Click v. Tyra , 867 S.W .2d 406, 407 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1993, orig

. proce eding ); see also Summit Savings Ass’n v. Garcia , 727 S.W .2d 106, 107 (Tex. App.— S an Antonio 1987, orig

. proce eding ). The relief Co ro n ado seeks, the trial rec ord for prepa ration of a writ of habea s corpus to attack his felony convictions, does not aff ect our jurisdiction. Courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony case s. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3 (Ve rnon Su pp. 1998); Hoang v. State , 872 S.W .2d 694, 697 (Tex. C ri m

. App. 1993). Post-conviction writ s o f h ab ea s corpus are to be filed in the trial court in which the conviction was obtained, made return ab l e t o the Court of Criminal Appea ls. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3 (Ve rnon Supp. 1998). Thus, beca use the District C l er k’s allege d ref usal to provide Coronado with a free copy of t he record does not aff

ect our jurisdiction, the exercise of our m an d am u s authority is inappropria te. See Click , 867 S.W .2d at 407.

In re Coronado , 980 S.W .2d 691, 692-93 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 1998, orig

. proce eding ). The

San Antonio c ourt’s rea soning applies with equa l force to the relief Cervante s reque sts he re. This

Court lacks jurisdiction to provide the re lief he r equests.

Cervante s’s Motion for L eave of Court is denied.

Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Waldrop

Filed: May

14, 2010

2