In Re: Jadon Marque Ballard--Appeal from of County

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-03-00141-CV

______________________________

IN RE: JADON MARQUE BALLARD

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jadon Marque Ballard has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he asks this Court to order the 208th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, to vacate the judgment of conviction in trial court cause number 915943 and to dismiss the cause with prejudice, based on his assertion the evidence presented at his trial shows his actual innocence. That conviction is presently on appeal before this Court pursuant to an order transferring the appeal from the Houston First Court of Appeals to this Court.

This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a "judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district." Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 22.221(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004). Harris County is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 22.201(g). We find nothing in this case which confers jurisdiction on this Court to decide this separate mandamus proceeding. // See In re Davis, 87 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding).

The counties that are contained in the districts for the courts of appeals are set out in Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 22.201 (Vernon Supp. 2004). Our civil jurisdiction is set out in Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 22.220 (Vernon 1988), which restricts our jurisdiction to those counties. Our mandamus jurisdiction is set out in Section 22.221(b), which provides us with authority to issue writs of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in our district.

There is no statutory authority which would permit this Court to exercise mandamus jurisdiction over a mandamus proceeding brought against a judge of a court sitting in Harris County, Texas.

Even if we had jurisdiction to address this mandamus on its merits, to establish entitlement to mandamus relief, the relator must show that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm and that the act to be compelled must be purely ministerial. Alvarez v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 977 S.W.2d 590, 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (orig. proceeding); Stotts v. Wisser, 894 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding). In this case, there is an adequate remedy at law: the direct appeal which is presently pending before this Court.

We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: November 3, 2003

Date Decided: November 4, 2003