In re Michael Davis Appeal from 228th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 3, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NOS. 14-16-00288-CR, 14-16-00289CR, and 14-16-00290-CR IN RE MICHAEL DAVIS, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 228th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 331288, 331289, and 331549 MEMORANDUM OPINION On April 8, 2016, relator Michael Davis 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 Chris Daniel, the Harris County District Clerk, to comply with the trial court’s order to provide relator with a free copy of the clerk’s record in cause nos. 331288, 331289, and 331549, in the 228th District Court, Harris County, Texas. 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. The district clerk is not a district court or county court judge in this court’s district, and relator 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 district clerk. See In re Simpson, 997 S.W.2d 939 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, orig. proceeding) (“The Government Code does not confer mandamus jurisdiction over District Clerks upon the courts of appeals.”). Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel consists Justices Busby, Donovan, and Wise. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 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.