Bruce Lynn Christensen v. The State of Texas Appeal from 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00698-CR Bruce Lynn CHRISTENSEN, Appellant v. The The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2001CR4986W3 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 5, 2014 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On October 8, 2014, a clerk’s record was filed in this appeal containing a notice of appeal stating that appellant seeks to appeal the denial of a petition for writ of mandamus relating to the record filed in connection with a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. On October 13, 2014, this court issued an order noting that the courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over felony postconviction writs of habeas corpus, and any complaint pertaining to a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus should be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. 04-14-00698-CR We therefore ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. On October 23, 2014, appellant responded that his appeal is “from the denial of a writ of mandamus, overruled by operation of law” filed as part of a continuing “search for some missing records.” Because the clerk’s record does not contain an order denying appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus, it appears appellant believes his petition was overruled by operation of law, thereby allowing his appeal. “While this is an incorrect statement [of the law], the denial of a ruling on [a] petition for writ of mandamus is not a separately appealable order.” Manning v. State, No. 14-11-00464-CR, 2011 WL 2434064, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 16, 2011, no pet.) (not designated for publication). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-
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.
