Opinion issued April 7, 2011
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-10-001057-CR
———————————
IN RE PATRICIA PRAKER, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Patricia Praker, pleaded guilty to the offense of felony murder. Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed relator on community supervision for a term of 10 years. Subsequently, on the State’s motion, the trial court adjudicated relator guilty of felony murder and assessed punishment at confinement for 30 years and a $2,000 fine. Relator’s conviction was affirmed on appeal. See Praker v. State, No. 01-06-00330-CR, 2007 WL 1166381, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 19, 2007, no pet.).
On January 11, 2011, the trial court denied relator’s motions for Chapter 64 DNA testing and for “discovery and inspection.” Relator did not file a notice of appeal. Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asking this court to compel the respondents to provide her with copies of “all records, transcripts, motions, affidavits and reports, investigations, statements and [the] plea” in the underlying case. Relator’s petition named the following as respondents: Attorney General Greg Abbott; Harris County District Attorney Patricia Lycos, and three other attorneys in her office; former Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Nathanich Quarterman; and former Harris County Sheriff Tommy Thomas.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Texas Government Code section 22.221(b) provides, in pertinent part, that a court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus against a “judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon 2004). In addition, the court may issue a writ of mandamus to enforce its jurisdiction. Id. § 22.221(a).
We do not have mandamus jurisdiction against the Texas Attorney General, a district attorney, a prison administrator, or a sheriff, unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See id.; see also In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). Relator has not demonstrated, and we do not conclude, that the requested relief is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Massengale.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).