In re Edwin Carl Debrow, Jr.--Appeal from 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Paul W. Green, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 12, 2004

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DENIED AS MOOT; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Relator Edwin Carl Debrow, Jr. filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court to the District Clerk of Bexar County, requiring her to forward his application for writ of habeas corpus to the Court of Criminal Appeals. (2) Our mandamus jurisdiction is limited. By statute, we have 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. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 22.221 (Vernon Supp. 2004). "We have no mandamus jurisdiction over district clerks unless it is shown the issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction." In re Lopez, 04-03-00820-CV, 2003 WL 22658158, at *1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Nov. 12, 2003, orig. proceeding); see also In re Dunn, 120 S.W.3d 913, 913 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Debrow has made no such allegation or showing. Accordingly, Debrow's petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (3)

PER CURIAM

1. This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2002-W-0144, styled Debrow v. State, pending in the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Teresa Herr presiding. The underlying conviction was rendered in Cause No. 1991-JUV-01209.

2. Debrow also filed a motion for leave to file the petition. A motion for leave is no longer necessary, therefore, we deny the motion for leave as moot.

3. In addition, relator's petition does not meet the requirements of Rule 52 because it does not contain copies of the documents pertinent to the petition. The appellate procedure rules require that a relator must provide the court with a record in support of the petition which contains a certified or sworn copy of every document material to the relator's claim for relief that was filed in the underlying proceeding. Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a). Without such a record, we cannot determine whether relator is entitled to the relief requested.