IN RE: JOSEPH WAYNE EL MUSTAFA--Appeal from 389th District Court of Hidalgo County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-10-00278-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE JOSEPH WAYNE EL-MUSTAFA On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Garza Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1 Relator, Joseph Wayne El-Mustafa, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on May 10, 2010, through which he contends that Rissie Owens and the Board of Pardons and Paroles for the State of Texas, in their official capacities, have improperly denied relator proper parole review due to illegal consideration of information not contained in his file. This Court's mandamus jurisdiction does not extend to the Board of Pardons and Paroles. See TEX . GOV'T CODE ANN . § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also In re Gilbert, No. 1 See T EX . R . A PP . P . 5 2 .8 (d ) ( W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand dow n an opinio n but is not required to do so. ); T EX . R . A PP . P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions). 09-10-00056-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 1550, at *1-2 (Tex. App. Beaumont Mar. 4, 2010, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op. not designated for publication); In re Westmoreland, No. 05-09-00944-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 6481, at *1-2 (Tex. App. Dallas Aug. 20, 2009, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op. not designated for publication); In re Chilton, No. 12-08-00277-CR, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 4671, at *1-2 (Tex. App. Tyler June 25, 2008, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op. not designated for publication). The issue herein is a purely post-conviction matter that does not implicate the jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX . GOV T CODE ANN . § 22.221; see also Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex. rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 482-83 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). 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 PER CURIAM Do not publish.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 11th day of May, 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.
