Court Opinion

ID: 9380447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-18 17:08:15.800282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:25.006113
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00113-CR

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                             IN RE WYLMON J. BOUDREAUX

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña
                 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

        On March 15, 2023, Wylmon J. Boudreaux filed a pro se petition for writ of

mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to deliver a copy of the judgment rendered

against him to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). According to the

petition, Boudreaux believes that he is eligible for parole, but the TDCJ has informed him

that it “hold[s] no judg[]ment [or] order.”

        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).
       This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number 738839 in the 232nd

District Court of Harris County, Texas. In that cause, Boudreaux was convicted of capital

murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the TDCJ’s Institutional Division. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03. Boudreaux appealed his conviction, and his appeal was

transferred to this Court. We reformed Boudreaux’s judgment of conviction to strike a

reference to the use of a deadly weapon and affirmed the judgment as modified. See

Boudreaux v. State, No. 13-97-00818-CR, 1999 WL 33757431, at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi–Edinburg July 1, 1999, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

       In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish

both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary

or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged

harm. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding);

In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam);

In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the

relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be

denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207,

210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

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

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); see

Powell v. Hocker, 516 S.W.3d 488, 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). The

main source of original jurisdiction for the courts of appeals is provided by § 22.221 of the

                                             2
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 the intermediate appellate courts may issue writs of mandamus against specified

judges in our district and “all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.”

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b); see In re State ex rel. Best, 616 S.W.3d 594, 599

& n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (orig. proceeding).

       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. First, Boudreaux

seeks mandamus relief against the judge of the 232nd District Court of Harris County.

However, Harris County is not located within the geographic district for the Thirteenth

Court of Appeals, but, instead, is located within the geographic districts for the First and

Fourteenth Courts of Appeals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(a), (o) (delineating

the counties comprising the First and Fourteenth Courts of Appeals Districts); 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 232nd District Court of

Harris County. See id. § 22.221(b). Second, Boudreaux’s direct appeal process has

concluded, and thus Boudreaux cannot establish that the requested relief is necessary to

enforce our appellate jurisdiction in the appeal. See id. § 22.221(a). Third, and finally,

Boudreaux’s direct appeal was transferred to this Court, and that transfer did not carry

with it any jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus in a separate original proceeding. See

In re Davis, 87 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding); see also

In re Marton, No. 13-22-00235-CV, 2022 WL 1682185, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–

                                               3
Edinburg May 26, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Mahmood, No. 07-22-00093-

CV, 2022 WL 1160398, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 19, 2022, orig. proceeding) (per

curiam) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we dismiss Boudreaux’s petition for writ of mandamus

for want of jurisdiction.

                                                          CLARISSA SILVA
                                                          Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the
16th day of March, 2023.

                                         4