Court Opinion

ID: 4517609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-03-18 22:15:32.591074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:31.138822
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-20-00065-CR
                               __________________

                   IN RE EDWARD CHARLES HOLLAND

__________________________________________________________________

                          Original Proceeding
           Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
                    Trial Cause Nos. 83949, 91161
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Relator Edward Charles Holland filed a petition for writ of mandamus, in

which he asks this Court to compel the district clerk to transmit a copy of relator’s

motion for judgment nunc pro tunc to this Court and to Holland. Attached to

Holland’s motion was a request to the district clerk, in which Holland asked the

district clerk to “force” the trial court to respond to his motion for judgment nunc

pro tunc.

                                         1
      Both of the underlying cases to which Holland’s petition pertains are final

convictions. See Holland v. State, No. 10-04-00239-CR, 2005 WL 1580681 (Tex.

App.—Waco July 6, 2005, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication); Holland v.

State, No. 09-04-00194-CR, 2006 WL 1045176 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 19,

2006, no pet.) (not designated for publication). The district clerk is not a person

against whom we may issue a writ of mandamus other than to enforce our

jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a), (b).

      Holland has not shown that issuance of a writ against the district clerk is

necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See id.; see also In re Pennington, No. 09-08-

370-CV, 2008 WL 4425521, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 2, 2008, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op). The proceedings at issue are post-conviction matters that do

not implicate this Court’s jurisdiction. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07,

§ 3(a). Holland has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief from this

Court. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                           PER CURIAM

Submitted on March 17, 2020
Opinion Delivered March 18, 2020

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
                                       2