In Re: Michael A. Kennedy Appeal from 3rd District Court of Anderson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-17-00317-CR NO. 12-17-00318-CR NO. 12-17-00319-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: § MICHAEL A. KENNEDY, § RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Michael A. Kennedy, Relator, has filed three original proceedings that address virtually identical complaints in three different cause numbers. In cause number 12-17-00317-CR, Relator contends that he was convicted without an indictment in trial court cause number 29326. In cause number 12-17-00318-CR, he complains that there are no records for his conviction in trial court cause number 19061. In cause number 12-17-00319-CR, he maintains that there was no judgment and sentence in trial court cause number 18,349. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction. We first note that Relator has not provided the “clear and concise argument” and “appropriate citations to authorities” required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(h). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h). Nor has he provided this Court with the necessary documents required by the rules of appellate procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a)(1). Additionally, Relator’s complaints address convictions that have long been final. See Kennedy v. State, No. 12–11–00041–CR, 2012 WL 3201924, at *8 (Tex. App.–Tyler Aug. 8, 2012, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming judgment on punishment in cause number 29326); see also Kennedy v. State, No. 12–08–00246–CR, 2009 WL 4829989, at *3–4 (Tex. App.–Tyler Dec. 16, 2009, pet. stricken) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming judgment of conviction in cause number 29326); Kennedy v. State, No. 12–86– 00248–CR (Tex. App.–Tyler Feb. 25, 1988, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (affirming conviction in cause number 19061); Kennedy v. State, 12-84-00138-CR (Tex. App—Tyler Apr. 18, 1985, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (affirming conviction in cause number 18,349). Courts of appeals do not have authority to issue writs of mandamus regarding complaints that may only be raised by a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). “To complain about any action, or inaction, of the convicting court, the applicant may seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.” In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196-97 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding).1 Accordingly, we dismiss the petitions for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. Opinion delivered October 25, 2017. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 1 On February 15, 2017, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued an abuse of writ order against Relator, in which it found that he (1) filed seven applications regarding his conviction, (2) “continues to raise issues that have been presented and rejected in previous applications or that should have been presented in previous applications[,]” and (3) “[b]ecause of his repetitive claims, … Applicant’s claims are barred from review under Article 11.07, § 4, and are waived and abandoned by his abuse of the writ.” Ex Parte Kennedy, No. WR-75,385-24 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 15, 2017). 2 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT OCTOBER 25, 2017 NO. 12-17-00317-CR IN RE: MICHAEL A. KENNEDY, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Michael A. Kennedy; who is the relator in Cause No. 29326. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on October 19, 2017, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that it lacks jurisdiction, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J. 3 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT OCTOBER 25, 2017 NO. 12-17-00318-CR IN RE: MICHAEL A. KENNEDY, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Michael A. Kennedy; who is the relator in Cause No. 19061. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on October 19, 2017, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that it lacks jurisdiction, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J. 4 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT OCTOBER 25, 2017 NO. 12-17-00319-CR IN RE: MICHAEL A. KENNEDY, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Michael A. Kennedy; who is the relator in Cause No. 18349. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on October 19, 2017, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that it lacks jurisdiction, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J. 5
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.
