The opinion
Opinion issued November 21, 2017
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-17-00856-CR
———————————
IN RE DAVID CLEO RICHARD, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
David Cleo Richard, acting pro se, has filed a petition seeking madamus relief
against the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.1 This court’s mandamus jurisdiction
is governed by Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. Section 22.221
expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs
1
The underlying case is The State of Texas v. David Richard, cause number
473584 in the 232nd District Court of Harris County.
against a district court judge or a county court judge in the court of appeals’ district;
and (2) all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T
CODE § 22.221. The Board of Pardons and Paroles is not a district court or county
court judge in this court’s district, and Richard has not shown that the issuance of a
writ compelling the requested relief is necessary to enforce this court’s appellate
jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus
against the Board of Pardons and Paroles. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221; In re
Fowler, No. 14–15–00712–CR, 2015 WL 5092623, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] Aug. 27, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for
publication).
Accordingly, Richard’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want
of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Lloyd.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
2