IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
OCTOBER 5, 2007
______________________________
IN RE JUAN ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, RELATOR
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINIONRelator, Juan Roberto Rodriguez, an inmate proceeding pro se has filed a "Petition for Writ of Prohibition" naming the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division as Respondents. His petition is couched in terms more appropriate to that of a petition for writ of mandamus. Rodriguez alleges he was "deprived of his privileges to litigate his legal matter's [sic] to both agency's [sic] and court systems to remedy issues that are state constitutional protections." (1)
Our jurisdiction to issue writs is limited. We have authority to issue writs when necessary to enforce our jurisdiction and against district and county court judges within our district. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004). The Respondents named herein are not parties against whom we may issue a writ of prohibition or a writ of mandamus. Additionally, Rodriguez has not demonstrated that the exercise of our writ power is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Consequently, we have no jurisdiction to grant Rodriguez any relief.
Accordingly, this proceeding is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
1. Relator's complaint relates to an alleged breach of a parole contract raised in Juan Roberto Rodriguez v. State of Texas, Cause Number 07-07-0388-CR, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on this same date.
a motion to revoke appellant's community supervision which was heard on January 26, 2006. Appellant pled not true to the State's fourteen violations of community supervision alleged as the basis for the motion. After hearing testimony, the trial judge found that appellant had committed eleven violations of his community supervision, revoked the order placing appellant on community supervision, and ordered that appellant serve the confinement portion of his sentence in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant's counsel has filed a brief, in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can arguably be predicated. Counsel thus concludes that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel's brief discusses why, under the controlling authorities, there is no reversible error in the trial court proceedings and judgment. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).
Counsel has attached an exhibit showing that a copy of the Anders brief has been forwarded to appellant and that counsel has appropriately advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel's motion and brief. The clerk of this court has also advised appellant by letter of his right to file a response to counsel's brief. Appellant has not filed a response.
We have made an independent examination of the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous grounds upon which an appeal could arguably be founded. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds.
Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App.-Waco 1994, writ ref'd). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.