In re Daniel HarrisAppeal from 182nd District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued May 1, 2014. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00873-CR IN RE DANIEL HARRIS, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Daniel Harris, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that the Harris County District Clerk has not provided him documents regarding his post-conviction writ of habeas corpus, sent documents to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and complied with a clerk s duties in a criminal proceeding.1 This Court does not have jurisdiction to grant relator s requested relief. By statute, we have the authority only to issue a writ of mandamus against a district court judge or a county court judge within the Court s jurisdiction, and may issue all writs necessary to enforce this Court s appellate jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a) (b) (West 2004). We have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk except to protect our jurisdiction. In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93, 94 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding)). Moreover, we have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.07. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a), (b) (West Supp. 2013); In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196 97 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); see also In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (noting that only Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings). 1 Harris s petition indicates that the underlying proceeding is cause number 1204054-A, styled Ex parte Daniel Harris, in the 182nd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Jeannine Barr presiding. 2 Conclusion Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 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.
