NO. 12-07-00051-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
§
IN RE: MICHAEL KENNEDY, § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
RELATOR
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Michael Kennedy has filed a petition seeking “extraordinary relief and mandamus.” In his statement of the facts, Kennedy complains that this court has not showed him how he can “obtain any copies or clerk’s pleading that documents was filed as denied in movant In re Michael Kennedy No. 12-06-00433-CR; No. 12-07-00021-CR and No. 12-06-00414-CR.” In his argument, he further states that the trial court will not allow him any copies and the clerk of the court will not answer or communicate with him or send him a copy of the petition and the facts the court “have been place notice and notified on served writ of mandamus in No. 12-06-00414-CR; 12-06-00433-CR and 12-07-00021-CR. . . .”
District Clerk. A court of appeals has the authority to issue writs of mandamus against a judge of a district or county in the court of appeals district and all writs necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004). In order for a district clerk to fall within our jurisdictional reach, it must be established that the issuance of the writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See id.; In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692-93 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Kennedy has not demonstrated that the exercise of our mandamus authority against the district clerk is appropriate to enforce our jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction of Kennedy’s request for mandamus relief as to the district clerk.
Trial Court. To obtain mandamus in a criminal matter, the relator must establish that the act sought to be compelled is ministerial rather than discretionary in nature and there is no adequate remedy at law. Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). We first note that the identity of the documents Kennedy seeks is unclear from his petition, and the record does not show that he has requested any specific documents from the trial court.1 Further, he has not shown that the trial court has a ministerial duty to furnish the documents he seeks. Therefore, he has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief against the trial court.
Disposition
As to the district clerk, the petition for extraordinary relief and for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. As to the trial court, the petition is denied.
Opinion delivered February 9, 2007.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
1 Kennedy seems to assert that the documents he seeks pertain to original proceedings he has filed in this court under cause numbers 12-06-00414-CR, 12-06-00433-CR, and 12-07-00021-CR.