Court Opinion

ID: 9406205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 09:10:49.395657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:27.872367
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                  No. 10-23-00193-CR

                            IN RE BRANDON HJELLA

                                 Original Proceeding

                   From the Justice of the Peace, Pct 1, Place 2
                           McLennan County, Texas
                          Trial Court No. J12T23-0237

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Relator Brandon Hjella has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which

he requests that we order the Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Place 2, in McLennan County

to dismiss the underlying case against him.

       Article V, section 6 of the Texas Constitution, which delineates the appellate

jurisdiction of the intermediate courts of appeals, provides that the courts of appeals have

original jurisdiction as prescribed by law. TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6. Section 22.221(a) of the

Government Code authorizes this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to enforce our

jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a). Section 22.221(b) of the Government
Code authorizes this Court to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district,

statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court”; “a judge of a district court

who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under Chapter 52, Code of Criminal

Procedure”; or “an associate judge of a district or county court appointed by a judge

under Chapter 201, Family Code,” so long as those judges are in this Court’s district. Id.

§ 22.221(b).

        We do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a justice of the

peace. Easton v. Franks, 842 S.W.2d 772, 773–74 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); see also In re Wilkins, No. 11-20-00049-CR, 2020 WL 868062, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Feb. 21, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., per curiam, not

designated for publication). And Hjella’s petition does not demonstrate that the relief

that he requests is necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction.

        Accordingly, we dismiss Hjella’s petition for writ of mandamus for want of

jurisdiction. Hjella’s “Emergency Motion to Advance Writ of Mandamus” is dismissed

as moot.

                                                 MATT JOHNSON
                                                 Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Petition dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed June 27, 2023
Do not publish
[OT06]

In re Hjella                                                                        Page 2