Court Opinion

ID: 9397758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 09:10:19.880387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:27.422414
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-23-00139-CR

                        IN RE MILTON LEE GARDNER

                                Original Proceeding

                           From the 77th District Court
                            Limestone County, Texas
                             Trial Court No. 13074-A

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Based on Milton Lee Gardner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, he has filed three

applications for a writ of habeas corpus. The first application (WR-43,847-09) was denied

by the Court of Criminal Appeals on July 20, 2020. His second application, (WR-43,847-

10) filed May 5, 2022, has been dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. His attempt

to file a third application for a writ of habeas corpus was sent to District Judge Alfonso

Charles in the 124th District Court of Gregg County via “a letter to Gregg County District

Clerk, Trey Hattaway.” Gardner seeks mandamus relief from this Court. “Specifically,

movant request that this court exercise it’s Mandamus Jurisdiction and Order the 124th

District Judge Alfonso Charles, as District Judge to issue the Writ Of Habeas
Corpus….Specifically, said district clerk is ‘ignoring’ movants Habeas, and Judge Charles

is failing to address it. In turn, these actions result in district court clerk, and district

judges refusing to do their jobs, this court should grant mandamus relief.” [sic].

       Upon the filing of the first application, the trial court judges then sitting in

Freestone County both recused themselves; and Judge Charles, acting as the regional

presiding judge, appointed himself to rule on the first application. He was not appointed

to rule on the second application, nor has he been appointed to rule on the third

application.

       This Court has no jurisdiction over a trial court judge outside our district—the

124th District Court is not within our district; nor does this Court have jurisdiction to

issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk except in circumstances not relevant

here. See TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 22.201(k), 22.221(a), (b); see also In re Simmonds, 271 S.W.3d

874, 879 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding).

       Accordingly, Gardner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed May 12, 2023, is

dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

                                          TOM GRAY
                                          Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Petition dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed May 24, 2023
Do not publish
[OT06]

In re Gardner                                                                          Page 2