The opinion
Opinion issued September 24, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00680-CR
———————————
IN RE STEVEN ALLEN GOMEZ, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus1
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING
Relator Steven Allen Gomez, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition
for writ of mandamus complaining that the trial court and the Texas Board of
1
Counsel for Appellant: Pro se
Counsel for Appellee: unknown
Trial court Judge: Hon. Lonnie Cox, 56th District Court of Galveston County;
Ressie Owens, Chair of Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
Pardons and Paroles refuse to rule on his request to modify his parole terms.2 We
dismissed the petition after receiving a motion to dismiss filed under relator’s
signature. Relator has moved for rehearing on the ground that the dismissal motion
was not filed by him but by another prison inmate who lacked authority to request
dismissal on relator’s behalf. We grant relator’s motion for rehearing,3 withdraw
our prior opinion, and issue this opinion in its stead.
This Court has no jurisdiction to grant relator’s request for relief against the
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. By statute, we only have the authority to
issue a writ of mandamus against a “judge of a district or county court in the court
of appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enforce our appellate
jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a)−(b) (West 2004) (emphasis
added). The issuance of a writ compelling the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
to provide relator the requested relief is not necessary to enforce our appellate
jurisdiction. Accordingly, that part of relator’s petition requesting relief against the
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles is outside the scope of our original
2
The underlying case is State v. Gomez, No. 02CR2058, in the 56th District Court
of Galveston County, Texas.
3
Rule 49.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that “[a] motion [for
rehearing] will not be granted unless a response has been filed or requested by the
Court.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.2. We conclude that there is good cause to suspend
the application of rule 49.2 in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2 (permitting appellate
courts to “suspend a rule’s operation in a particular case” on its own initiative in
order “to expedite a decision or for other good cause”). Given our decision to deny
mandamus relief, we decline to impose upon the real party in interest the expense
of filing a response to the rehearing motion.
2
jurisdiction. We deny the remainder of the relief requested in relator’s petition, and
we dismiss all outstanding motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Huddle, and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3