Court Opinion

ID: 9385745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-08 10:09:11.090911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:04.498080
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00086-CR
                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
                                          TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:                                                 §

MILTON LEE GARDNER,                                    §       ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR                                                §

                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                          PER CURIAM
        Milton Lee Gardner, acting pro se, filed this original proceeding seeking a writ ordering
Respondent to issue a writ of habeas corpus. 1
        In 2014, a Limestone County jury convicted Relator of aggravated assault-family
violence with a deadly weapon and sentenced him to sixty years in prison. Gardner v. State, No.
10-14-00041-CR, 2015 WL 5092081, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 27, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem.
op., not designated for publication). Limestone County is in the Tenth Court of Appeals district.
See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(k) (West 2023). The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed
Relator’s conviction. Gardner, 2015 WL 5092081, at *1.                    Relator appears to believe that
because the local district judges have been subsequently recused and Respondent, a Gregg
County judge, assigned himself to the case, jurisdiction now lies in Gregg County and with this
Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(m) (Twelfth Court of Appeals district).
        But the “presentment of an indictment or information to a court invests the court with
jurisdiction of the cause.” TEX. CONST. art. V, § 12(b). Here, Respondent assigned himself to the
77th District Court in Limestone County for purposes of Relator’s case; the case was not
transferred to another court. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(g)(7) (if motion to recuse is granted,
regional presiding judge must transfer case to another court or assign a judge to the case); see

        1
          Respondent is the Honorable Alfonso Charles, Judge of the 124th District Court in Gregg County, Texas,
and the Presiding Judge for the Tenth Administrative Judicial Region, sitting by assignment to the 77th District
Court in Limestone County, Texas. The State of Texas is the Real Party in Interest.
also De Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Rule 18a applies
to criminal cases). Thus, jurisdiction remains in Limestone County and with the Tenth Court of
Appeals. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over this proceeding, we dismiss the petition for
writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.
Opinion delivered April 5, 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

                                             APRIL 5, 2023

                                        NO. 12-23-00086-CR

                                    MILTON LEE GARDNER,
                                           Relator
                                             V.

                                  HON. ALFONSO CHARLES,
                                         Respondent

                                       ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

              ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by
Milton Lee Gardner; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-23-00086-CR and the
defendant in trial court cause number 13074-A, formerly pending on the docket of the 77th
Judicial District Court of Limestone County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having
been filed herein on March 29, 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