In re Joseph Aaron Henry Appeal from 198th Judicial District Court of Kerr County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-15-00490-CR IN RE Joseph Aaron HENRY Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 12, 2015 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On August 5, 2015, relator Joseph Aaron Henry filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he complains that the clerks and County Attorney for Kerr County have failed to respond to or facilitate his requests to set depositions and obtain a copy of the file and transcripts from a 1992 juvenile proceeding which was transferred to criminal district court for trial and disposition. This court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. By statute, this court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a)-(b) (West 2004). Relator does not have any properly filed motions which have been pending in a presently open proceeding for an unreasonable period of time awaiting 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. J92-53A, styled In the Matter of J.A.H., A Child, County Court, Kerr County, Texas, and A92-385, styled The State of Texas v. Joseph Aaron Henry, 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas. 04-15-00490-CR disposition. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). Nor does he complain of any action taken by a judge in this court of appeals district. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(d)(3). The writ is not necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.