Court Opinion

ID: 2943029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-16 01:42:23.749131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:46.439841
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-71,417-01

GREG BEAUCHAMP, Relator

v.

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK, Respondent

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
CAUSE NOS. 9410635 & 9410636, 
IN THE 339th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FROM HARRIS COUNTY

 Per curiam.

O R D E R

	Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original
jurisdiction of this Court.  In it, he contends that he filed two applications for writs of habeas corpus
in the 339th Judicial District Court of Harris County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that
the application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.  
	 In these circumstances, additional facts are needed.  The respondent, the District Clerk of 
Harris County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by: submitting the record on such
habeas corpus application; submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be
investigated, see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); by stating that the
nature of the claims asserted in the application filed by Relator is such that the claims are not
cognizable under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 3; or stating that Relator has not filed  an
application for habeas corpus in Hidalgo County.  It appears that orders designating issues may have
been signed in these causes, but those orders may have been untimely.  Should the response include
an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney's office was served with the habeas
application shall also be submitted with the response. 
	This application for leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until the
respondent has submitted the appropriate response.  Such response shall be submitted within 30 days
of the date of this order.

Filed: September 29, 2010
Do not publish