In Re: Dennis Lynn Fulcher--Appeal from 10th District Court of Galveston County

Annotate this Case
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 10, 2003

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 10, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-00757-CV

____________

IN RE DENNIS LYNN FULCHER, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N


On July 3, 2003 relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov=t. Code Ann. ' 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In his petition, relator seeks to compel the Hon. David E. Garner, Judge of the 10th District Court of Galveston County, and Evelyn Wells, Galveston County District Clerk, to act on a motion to obtain trial records relating to his 1993 conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child in cause number 92CR0128 in the 10th District Court of Galveston County. This Court affirmed relator=s conviction in 1995.[1] See Fulcher v. State, 1995 WL 128197, No. 14-93-00964-CR; (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] March 23, 1995, no pet.) (not designated for publication). Therefore, we have no mandamus jurisdiction over the district clerk. See Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 22.221(a) (granting courts of appeals power to issue writs necessary to enforce our jurisdiction). In addition, relator=s petition does not demonstrate grounds entitling him to mandamus relief against the trial court judge.

We deny relator=s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Petition Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 10, 2003.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Fowler and Edelman.


[1] On April 23, 2003, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted relator=s application for post-conviction writ of habeas corpus and allowed him thirty days after the issuance of its mandate to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Appeals. See Ex Parte Fulcher, 2003 WL 1922494, No. 74641, (Tex. Crim. App. April 23, 2003) (not designated for publication).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.