IN RE: ANTONIO C. MUNOZ--Appeal from 139th District Court of Hidalgo County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-10-00048-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE ANTONIO C. MUà OZ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1 Relator, Antonio C. Muñoz, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in this Court, complaining that the respondent, Laura Hinojosa, the District Clerk of Hidalgo County, Texas, has not forwarded documents related to an article 11.07 writ of habeas corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC . ANN . art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2008); see also In re Escareno, 297 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 1 See T EX . R . A PP . P . 52.8(d) ( W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand dow n an opinio n b u t is not required to do so. ); T EX . R . A PP . P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions). This Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over district clerks unless it is shown that issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX . GOV'T CODE ANN . § 22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004); In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding); see also In re Nubine, No. 13-08-507-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6534, at *1 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi Aug. 27, 2008, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op). Moreover, while courts of appeals have mandamus jurisdiction in criminal matters, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings. See TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC . ANN . art. 11.07 § 3 (Vernon Supp. 2008); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction to consider this matter. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Do not publish. See TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 8th day of February, 2010. 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.
