Opinion issued July 10, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00310-CR
———————————
IN RE JAIME LUEVANO, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se relator Jaime Luevano filed a petition for writ of mandamus
compelling resentencing and appointing counsel. Although relator fails to identify a
respondent, the petition indicates that it arises from a case outside of this court of
appeals district. We do not have mandamus jurisdiction against a judge outside of
our district unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE
ANN. §§ 22.221(a) (West 2004) (court of appeals “may issue a writ of mandamus
and all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court”); 22.221(b)(1)
(court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus against a “judge of a district or
county court in the court of appeals district”); see also In re Seay, No. 01-13-
00854-CR, 2014 WL 866143, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] March 4,
2014, no pet.) (“By statute, we have the authority only to issue a writ of mandamus
against a district court judge or county court judge in this Court's district, and we
may issue all writs as necessary to enforce this Court's appellate jurisdiction.”).
Relator has not demonstrated, and we do not conclude, that the requested relief is
necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Therefore, relator’s request does not fall
within our mandamus jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of
jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
2