Court Opinion

ID: 9915697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-06 18:13:06.838677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:11.424992
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-24-00004-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                   IN RE DANIEL LAROCK

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

  Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina
          Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1

        Relator Daniel LaRock filed a petition for writ of mandamus contending that the

trial court abused its discretion by awarding spousal maintenance to the real party in

interest Daphne LaRock. This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number

22D36265 in the 273rd District Court of Shelby County, Texas.

        Article V, § 6 of the Texas Constitution delineates the appellate jurisdiction of the

        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).
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 273rd District Court of Shelby County. However,

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

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

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

Twelfth 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 273rd District Court of Shelby 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.

                                                          DORI CONTRERAS
                                                          Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the
4th day of January, 2024.

                                         3