IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12-00025-CR
GLEN DAVIS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 13th District Court
Navarro County, Texas
Trial Court No. 22622-CR
and
No. 10-13-00154-CR
IN RE GLEN DAVIS
______________
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
We affirmed Glen Davis’s conviction on December 20, 2012, and the Court of
Criminal Appeals refused his petition for discretionary review on March 27, 2013. See Davis
v. State, No. 10-12-00025-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 10578 (Tex. App.—Waco, Dec. 20, 2012,
pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). In an attempt to obtain a free copy of the
complete reporter’s record of his underlying criminal trial and conviction, Davis filed a
motion with this Court on April 1, 2013. In that motion, he asked this Court ‚to order the
District Court Clerk…to provide the defendant with a ‘complete’ copy of the court trial
transcripts….‛ We denied the motion on April 18, 2013, and Davis filed a motion for
rehearing on April 25, 2013. On reconsideration, we must first address the jurisdictional
issues raised by Davis’s request.
CONSIDERED AS A MOTION
As a motion presented from the original appeal, our plenary power has long
expired, and we have no jurisdiction to consider Davis’s ‚Defendants Pro-Se Motion for a
Court Ordered Copy of Trial Transcripts‛ requesting this Court to order the trial court clerk
to provide Davis with a free copy of his trial ‚transcript.‛ See TEX R. APP. P. 19.1. Likewise,
we have no jurisdiction of Davis’s motion for rehearing. Id.
Accordingly, our order issued on April 18, 2013 is withdrawn. And as a motion,
Davis’s ‚Defendants Pro-Se Motion for a Court Ordered Copy of Trial Transcripts‛ and his
motion for rehearing would, therefore, have to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
CONSIDERED AS A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
However, after careful consideration of this acknowledgement of the procedural
posture of this proceeding and the relief requested, we have determined that the motion is
more appropriately characterized as a petition for writ of mandamus. We have jurisdiction
Davis v. State and In re Davis Page 2
of a trial court clerk for purposes of issuing a writ of mandamus only when necessary to
enforce our jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a) (West 2004). In Davis’s motion
for rehearing, he expressly states, ‚Glen Davis will be filing an 11.07 WHC shortly with the
C.O.C.A. in Austin and then his 22.54 in the Feral Courts. Both of which he needs his trial
records to attempt to successfully defend himself pro-se.‛ (Sic). By his express averments,
Davis does not need the records sought to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. In fact, he has
expressly stated that he needs these records for use in courts other than this one.
Accordingly, ordering the clerk to provide the records sought is not for the purpose of
protecting this Court’s jurisdiction.
We do not have jurisdiction to compel the district court clerk to provide the records
sought. Therefore, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed.1
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Order withdrawn
Petition dismissed
Opinion issued and filed May 9, 2013
OT06
1 We direct the appellate court clerk to move Davis’s original motion, motion for rehearing and all other
letters, orders, and additions filed in Davis v. State, 10-12-00025-CR to a new mandamus proceeding
styled In re Davis.
Davis v. State and In re Davis Page 3