Court Opinion

ID: 9958021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-06 06:14:56.034831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:41.413626
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed April 4, 2024

                                        In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                      __________

                                 No. 11-24-00079-CR
                                      __________

                               IN RE JAMES FLORES

                              Original Mandamus Proceeding

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
       Relator, James Flores, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in this
court. He asks that this court “grant immediate relief by staying his incarceration.”
We construe Relator’s filings as a request that we order his release from detention
under a pre-revocation warrant issued by the Parole Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, also referred to as a “blue warrant.” See Ex parte
White, 400 S.W.3d 92, 93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). We dismiss for want of
jurisdiction.
       To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must establish that: (1) the act
sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial
decision; and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm. In
re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding).
      This court’s authority to issue original writs of mandamus is limited. See TEX.
CONST. art. V, §§ 5, 6 (intermediate courts of appeals only have original jurisdiction
as prescribed by law); TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2023).
Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code expressly limits mandamus
jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a district court or a county
court judge in the court of appeals’ district; and (2) all writs necessary to enforce the
court of appeals’ jurisdiction. GOV’T § 22.221(a)–(c).
      Relator has not asserted that a writ of mandamus ordering his release is
necessary to enforce this court’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, we have no general writ
authority over the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, or Relator’s parole officer
whom he names in his filings. See, e.g., In re Aldridge, No. 11-22-00061-CR, 2022
WL 969533, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Mar. 31, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem.
op. not designated for publication); see also In re Wilson, No. 01-20-00557-CR,
2020 WL 6140178, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 20, 2020, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op. not designated for publication). Because we do not have
jurisdiction to issue a mandamus against any of the respondents named in Relator’s
petition, we must dismiss his petition.
      Additionally, even if this court had authority to issue a writ of mandamus in
this case, mandamus would not lie here. “To be entitled to mandamus relief, a party
must have a clear right to the relief sought.” Ex parte Johnson, 541 S.W.3d 827,
831 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). The relevant statute specifies that a parolee “may be
held in custody pending a determination of all facts surrounding the alleged offense,
violation of a rule or condition of release, or dangerous behavior.”             GOV’T
§ 508.254(a) (West Supp. 2023). It permits a magistrate to release the parolee on

                                           2
bond pending a hearing on a charge of parole violation under certain circumstances.
Id. § 508.254(d). A parolee is eligible for release on bond by a magistrate if he has
not been convicted of “an offense involving family violence.” Id. § 508.254(e).
Because Relator was convicted of burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit
an assault—his former wife is the named victim of the offense—he has been
convicted of an offense involving family violence. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 30.02(a) (West 2019); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 71.003–.004 (West 2019); see
also Flores v. State, No. 11-06-00295-CR, 2008 WL 1903787, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Eastland May 1, 2008, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
      Finally, the appropriate method to address Relator’s claim that his detention
is unjust is through an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of
conviction, filed with the appropriate district court.      See TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2023). Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ
of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions in this
proceeding are overruled.

                                               JOHN M. BAILEY
                                               CHIEF JUSTICE

April 4, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                          3