Court Opinion

ID: 9902326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-25 11:11:34.911164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:49.071407
License: Public Domain

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

IN RE:                                                           §

CHRISTOPHER EDWARD PARKS,                                        §   ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR                                                          §

                                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                                PER CURIAM
         Christopher Edward Parks, acting pro se, filed this original proceeding to complain of
Respondents Smith County District Clerk Penny Clarkston’s and court reporter Jennifer
Lowrence failure to provide requested transcripts of the reporter’s record. 1
         However, neither a district clerk nor a court reporter is a judge over which this Court has
mandamus jurisdiction. 2 See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 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 designated for publication) (dismissing for want
of jurisdiction mandamus petition against clerk for failure to provide forms to assist in filing
post-conviction relief); In re Eaton, No. 12–15–00118–CR, 2016 WL 6876502, at *1 (Tex.
App.–Tyler, Nov. 22, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated 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 authority to grant and issue and cause the issuance
of writs of habeas corpus, and, in criminal law matters, the writs of mandamus, procedendo, prohibition, and
certiorari.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 4.04 § 1 (West 2005); see In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014) (reviewing petition for writ of mandamus against district clerk). Additionally, Relator was sentenced in
2017 for the felony offense of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle. The appropriate method for collaterally
attacking a final felony conviction is by a petition for writ of habeas corpus. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07
(West Supp. 2022).
Apr. 26, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op) (per curiam) (dismissing mandamus proceeding
against district clerk for want of jurisdiction because addressing complaint that clerk refused to
file petition was not necessary to enforce appellate court jurisdiction), see also In re Olivarez,
Nos.13-23-00389-CR & 13-23-00390-CR, 2023 WL 5814414 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Sept.
7, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing for want of
jurisdiction mandamus petitions seeking writ against court reporter).           Nor does the record
demonstrate that issuance of a writ of mandamus against Respondents is necessary to protect this
Court’s jurisdiction, i.e., we have jurisdiction to issue a writ against a district clerk for failure to
forward a notice of appeal to this Court because such is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.
See In re Talkington, No. 12-07-00272-CR, 2007 WL 2178551, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler July
31, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Ex parte
Sanders, No. WR-80,356-01, 2013 WL 5872901, at *1 (Tex. Crim. 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. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 6, 2016, orig. proceeding) (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 dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered November 21, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          2
                                 COURT OF APPEALS
     TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                         JUDGMENT

                                       NOVEMBER 21, 2023

                                       NO. 12-23-00242-CR

                            CHRISTOPHER EDWARD PARKS,
                                      Relator
                                        V.

                  PENNY CLARKSTON AND JENNIFER LOWRENCE
                                Respondents

                                      ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

              ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by
Christopher Edward Parks; who is the relator 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 mandamus having been
filed herein on September 18, 2023, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the
opinion of this Court that it lacks jurisdiction, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and
ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for
want of jurisdiction.
                  By per curiam opinion.
                  Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

                                                    3