In Re: Clyde Ura Cain, Sr. Appeal from 228th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-14-00203-CR IN RE: CLYDE URA CAIN, SR. Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter MEMORANDUM OPINION Clyde Ura Cain, Sr., proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asking this Court to direct the 228th Judicial District Court of Harris County 1 to rule on his motion to compel the District Clerk of the 228th Judicial District Court to produce and make available to him the records from that court’s cause number 578,488. In his petition for writ of mandamus, Cain states his motion was placed in the mail on October 8, 2014. Cain alleges the trial court has neither acknowledged receipt of nor ruled on his motion. He, therefore, requests that this Court order the 228th Judicial District Court to rule on his motion. 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) (West 2004). The 228th Judicial District Court of Harris County is not within this Court’s district. We, therefore, do not have mandamus jurisdiction over that court. Accordingly, we have no authority to consider Cain’s petition on its merits. 1 Cain’s 1991 appeal from his conviction under trial court cause number 578,488 in the 228th Judicial District Court of Harris County was transferred from the First Court of Appeals to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). That appeal has long since concluded. Cain does not currently have an appeal pending before this Court. 2 We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. Jack Carter Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: December 2, 2014 December 3, 2014 Do Not Publish 3

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.