In Re: Lakeith Amir-SharifAppeal from 255th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

DISMISS; and Opinion Filed April 8, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00396-CV IN RE LAKEITH AMIR-SHARIF, Relator On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-09-7655-S MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O'Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers Relator contends that the trial judge improperly issued an order setting a trial date on February 19, 2013, after his motion to recuse was filed, and that the Honorable Judge John Ovard did not properly handle his recusal motion. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. With respect to the trial judge, based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a); Simon v. Levario, 306 S.W.3d 318, 320-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (orig. proceeding); State of Tex. ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relator s petition for writ of mandamus to the extent it seeks relief against the trial court. With respect to the administrative judge, this Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over Judge Ovard for actions he takes as presiding judge of the administrative region. See TEX. GOV T CODE ANN. § 222.221 (West 2004); In re ES Energy Solutions, LP, No. 05-10-01158-CV, 2010 WL 3720219, at * 1 (Tex. App. Dallas Sept. 24, 2010, orig. proceeding); In re Hill, No. 05-10-00463-CV, 2010 WL 1633716, at *1 (Tex.App.-Dallas Apr. 23, 2010, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DISMISS relator s petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction to the extent it seeks relief against Judge Ovard. /Elizabeth Lang-Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE 130396F.P05 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.