Opinion

in Re Michael E. Roberts

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Filed
Mar 15, 2007
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 35.2%

The opinion

Opinion issued March 15, 2007

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-06-01062-CR

____________

IN RE MICHAEL E. ROBERTS, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Michael E. Roberts, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. In

his petition, Relator refers to four felony convictions, in 1999, in trial court cause

numbers 770396, 771007, 771371, 667886, in which he was sentenced to

confinement for 40 years. Relator names as respondents the judge of the 182nd

District Court and the Texas Attorney General. His petition requests this Court to

order the respondents to provide: a certificate of appeal, a pauper's affidavit, and a

hearing for discovery of evidence to assist him in preparing an appeal. We deny the

petition.

We may issue all writs of mandamus, agreeable to the principles of law

regulating those writs, against a judge of a district or county court in our district.

Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (b) (Vernon Supp. 2006). We may also issue writs

of mandamus and all other writs necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Tex. Gov't

Code Ann. § 22.221 (a) (Vernon Supp. 2006). Mandamus issues only to correct a

clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no

other adequate remedy at law. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992).

Relator's requests do not fall within our mandamus authority.

Even if we considered relator's request as a petition for writ of habeas corpus,

we have neither original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal cases, nor post-conviction habeas corpus jurisdiction in felony cases. See Board of Pardons &

Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District , 910 S.W.2d 481,

483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3 (Vernon

Supp. 2006).

The petition for writ of mandamus is therefore dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Jennings and Bland.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.