IN Re Douglas Huff Flores--Appeal from 183rd District Court of Harris County

Annotate this Case
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 31 , 2003

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 31 , 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-00818-CV

____________

IN RE DOUGLAS HUFF FLORES, 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 23, 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 have this Court compel the clerk and judge of the 183rd District Court in Harris County to forward his article 11.07 post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus, together with the related record, to the Court of Criminal Appeals. According to relator=s petition, the trial judge has apparently ordered the clerk to forward the application and record to the Court of Criminal Appeals.


To obtain mandamus relief, settled law requires the relator to establish: A(1) he has no other adequate legal remedy; and (2) under the relevant facts and law, the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial.@ State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Relator has not demonstrated the trial court did not perform its ministerial duty.

Therefore, it appears relator=s complaint is against the clerk of the trial court. This Court may issue a writ against a court clerk only to enforce our own jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 22.221(a) (court of appeals may issue writ of mandamus necessary to enforce its jurisdiction). We have no jurisdiction over post-conviction applications for writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (post-conviction writs in felony cases are returnable to Court of Criminal Appeals).

We deny relator=s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Petition Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 31, 2003.

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

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.