Court Opinion

ID: 9943696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-24 18:11:24.870813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:48.366222
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-24-00132-CR

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                    IN RE JOSE MORALES

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                     Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña
                    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

        Relator Jose Morales filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus raising complaints

regarding violations of due process, false evidence, and a void judgment. This original

proceeding arises from trial court cause number D-1-DC-17-300766 in the 390th District

Court of Travis County, Texas.

        1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
       Article V, § 6 of the Texas Constitution delineates the appellate jurisdiction of the

courts of appeals, and states that the courts of appeals “shall have such other jurisdiction,

original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law.” TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6(a). The main

source of original jurisdiction for the courts of appeals is provided by § 22.221 of the Texas

Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221; In re Cook, 394 S.W.3d 668,

671 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, orig. proceeding). In pertinent part, this section provides that

an intermediate appellate court may issue writs of mandamus against specified judges in

its district and “all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” TEX. GOV’T

CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b).

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this original proceeding. Relator seeks

mandamus relief against the judge of the 390th District Court of Travis County. However,

Travis County is not located within the geographic district for the Thirteenth Court of

Appeals and is instead located within the geographic district for the Third Court of

Appeals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(d) (delineating the counties comprising the

Third Court of Appeals District); id. § 22.201(n) (delineating the counties comprising the

Thirteenth Court of Appeals District). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to issue a writ against the

judge of the 390th District Court of Travis County. See id. § 22.221(b); In re Cortez, 415

S.W.3d 903, 904 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Further,

there is no indication in the record that the requested relief is necessary to enforce our

                                               2
appellate jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a). Accordingly, we dismiss

the petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                          NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                          Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the
23rd day of February, 2024.

                                         3