In re Brett David Bogus Appeal from 176th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Opinion filed January 26, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00011-CR IN RE BRETT DAVID BOGUS, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 176th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1433472 MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 6, 2016, relator Brett David Bogus 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 asks this court to compel Bill Stradley, Andrew McStay, Glenn Lilly, John Burger, and the City of Humble to turn over documents and evidence to him.1 This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. Section 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to (1) writs against a district court judge or a county court judge 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. None of the respondents is a district court or county court judge in this court’s district. Four of the respondents are attorneys who allegedly have represented relator and the fifth is a city. Relator also has not shown that the issuance of a writ compelling the requested relief is necessary to enforce this court’s appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the respondents. Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Wise. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 1 The document relator filed in this court is entitled “Motion to Compel.” However, we construe it as a petition for writ of mandamus. 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.