## NO. 12
- 23
- 00242
- CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:
CHRISTOPHER EDWARD PA R KS , RELATOR § § § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Christopher Edward Parks, acting pro se, filed this origi nal proceeding to c omplain of Respondent s Smith County Distri ct Clerk Penny Clarkston ’ s and court reporter Jen nifer L o wr e nce failure to provide requested tra n scripts of the reporter ’ s record. 1 However, neither a district clerk nor a court reporter is a ju dge over which this Court has mandamus j urisdiction. 2 See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. 22.221(a), (b) (West Supp. 2020) (writ power); see also In re Mack , No. 10

- 17

- 00186

- CR, 2017 WL 2819091, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Waco June 28, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not de sign ated for publication) (dismissing fo r want of jurisdiction m andamus petition against clerk for failure to provide forms to assist in filing post

- conviction relief); In re Eaton , N o . 12

– 15

– 00118

– CR, 2016 WL 6876502, at *1 (Tex. App.

– Tyler, Nov. 22, 2016 , or ig. proceeding) (mem. op., not desig nated for publication) ( appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider merits of mandamus petition as to district clerk); In re Vargas , No. 01

- 12

- 00351

- CV, 2012 WL 1454550, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.]

1 The State of Texas is the Real Party in Interest

.
2 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has “power and aut hority to grant and issue an d cause the issuance of writs of habeas corpus, and, in criminal law matters, the writs of mandamus , proc edendo, prohibition , and certiorari.” T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 4.04 § 1 (West 2005) ; se e In re Bonilla , 424 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (reviewing petition for writ of mandamus a gainst district clerk )

. Additionally, Relator was sentenced in 2017 for the felony o ffense of ev ading arrest or detention with a veh i c le. T he appropr ia te method for collaterally attacking a final felony conviction is by a petit ion for writ of habeas corp us. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2022).2 Apr. 26, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op) (p er curiam) (dismissing m andamus proceeding against district clerk for want of jurisdiction because addressing complaint that clerk refused to f i le petition was not necessary to enforce appellate court jurisdiction) , see also In re Olivarez, No s.13

- 23

- 00389

- CR & 13

- 23

- 00390

- CR, 2023 WL 5814414 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi Sept. 7, 2023, orig . p r oceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction mandamus petitions seeking writ against c ourt reporter). Nor does the record demonstrate that iss uance of a writ of manda mus against Respondent s is necessary to protect this Court ’ s jurisdiction, i.e., we have jurisdiction to issue a writ ag a inst a district clerk for failure to forward a notic e of appeal to this Court because such is necessary to enfor ce our jurisdiction. Se e In re Talkington , No. 12

- 07

- 00272

- CR, 2007 WL 2178551, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Tyler July 31, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. o p., not designated for publication); see also Ex par te Sanders , No. WR

- 80,356

- 01, 2013 WL 5872901, at *1 (Tex. Cr im. App. Oct. 30, 2013) (order, not designated for publication) (per curiam); In re Foster , No. 14

- 16

- 00698

- CR, 2016 WL 5853282, at *1 (Tex. Ap p.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 6, 2016, orig. proceedi ng ) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (per curiam); In re Smith , 263 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding). Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief under the circumstances of this case , we dism is s the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jur isdiction

. Opinion delivered N ovember 2 1 , 2023. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO N OT PUBLISH)3 

## COURT OF APPEALS TWELF TH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT

NO VE MBER 2 1 , 2023

NO. 12
- 23
- 00242
- CR

CHRISTOPHER EDWARD PARKS , Relator V. PENNY CLAR KSTON AND JENNIFER LO WR ENCE Respondent s

O RIGINAL P ROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Christophe r Edward Parks ; who is the r el ator in appellate cause number 12

- 23

- 00242

- CR and the defendant in trial court cause number 114

- 0558

- 17 , formerly pending on the docket of the 114th Judicial District Court of Smith County , Texas. Said petition for writ of ma ndamus having been filed her ei n on September 18, 2023 , an d the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Co urt that it lacks jurisdiction , it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamu s be, and the same is, hereb y dismissed for want of juris diction

. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.