In Re Ted Lawrence Robertson Appeal from 312th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 21, 2015. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-15-00603-CV IN RE TED LAWRENCE ROBERTSON, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 312th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2001-35725 MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 14, 2015, relator Ted Lawrence Robertson filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator named the Honorable Eva M. Guzman, former judge of the 309th District Court and currently a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, and the Honorable James D. Squier, former judge of the 312th District Court, as respondents. 1 Relator requests that we compel respondents to vacate a protective order entered at a default hearing on August 15, 2001. Relator was subsequently convicted of violating the protective order and claims the order is void. Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a “judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district”; and (2) all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. We do not have jurisdiction over a former district judge or any Texas Supreme Court justice, and relator has not shown that issuance of a writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus dismissed for lack of jurisdiction PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise. 1 Relator names the Honorable Michael Squire as one of the respondents. However, there is no current or former district judge of that name. We believe relator meant to name Judge James D. Squier. 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.