COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
'
' No. 08-16-00324-CV
IN RE: TONY RODRIGUEZ,
' AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
Relator.
' IN MANDAMUS
'
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Tony Rodriguez, has filed a mandamus petition asking that we order the
Honorable Laura Strathmann, Judge of the 388th District Court of El Paso County, Texas, and
the Honorable Jesus Rodriguez, Associate Judge, to withdraw an order excluding illegally
obtained evidence. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
JURISDICTION
Relator seeks mandamus relief against both Associate Judge Rodriguez and District
Judge Strathmann. Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code governs a court of appeals’
mandamus jurisdiction. See TEX.GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004). Under Section
22.221(b), a court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus against a: (1) judge of a district or
county court in the court of appeals’ district; or (2) judge of a district court who is acting as a
magistrate at a court of inquiry in the court of appeals’ district. See TEX.GOV’T CODE ANN. §
22.221(b). A court of appeals may also issue a writ of mandamus and all other writs necessary to
enforce the jurisdiction of the court. See TEX.GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a). Thus, a court of
appeals lacks mandamus jurisdiction over an associate judge unless issuance of the writ is
necessary to protect the court’s jurisdiction. There is nothing in the mandamus record to indicate
that issuance of the writ against Associate Judge Rodriguez is necessary to protect the Court’s
jurisdiction. See In re Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, 348 S.W.3d 492,
495 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2011, orig. proceeding)(dismissing petition for writ of mandamus
against associate judge for lack of jurisdiction). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to grant
mandamus relief against Associate Judge Rodriguez.
MANDAMUS AGAINST DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court has jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against a district judge in an
appropriate case. In his sole issue, Relator alleges that the order excluding evidence violates his
right to due process because it precludes him from introducing “any evidence” in future hearings
in this case and any other case. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator generally must meet
two requirements. First, the relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.
In re Prudential Insurance Company of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). Second, the
relator must demonstrate that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Id. at 136. Based on the
record before us, we conclude that Relator has failed to establish he is entitled to mandamus
relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
December 21, 2016
ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
-2-