in Re Andrea Pia Yates

Opinion issued March 17, 2006 In The Court of Appeals For the First District of Texas ____________ NO. 01–06–00221–CR ____________ IN RE ANDREA PIA YATES, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Prohibition MEMORANDUM OPINIONRelator Andrea Pia Yates filed a petition for a writ of prohibition requesting this Court to prohibit Judge Hill from proceeding to trial on March 20, 2006 on the pending indictments against relator while this Court considered Yates’s appeal of the denial of habeas corpus relief. The real party in interest is the State of Texas. Unlike the Court of Criminal Appeals, which has broad constitutional power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, procedendo, prohibition, and certiorari, this Court’s statutory general writ power is limited to “writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” Compare Tex. Const. art. V, § 5(c) (Court of Criminal Appeals writ power) with Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a) (Vernon 2004) (court of appeals writ power). While other statutory provisions give this Court general power to issue writs of (1) mandamus against judges of district or county courts and (2) habeas corpus in civil cases, we do not have general power to issue writs of prohibition. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b), (d) (Vernon 2004); Shelvin v. Lykos, 741 S.W.2d 178, 181 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, orig. proceeding). Because this Court has actual jurisdiction over a related appeal, we have subject–matter jurisdiction to consider this original proceeding and to potentially issue a writ of prohibition requiring the trial judge to refrain from performing a future act. See Lesikar v. Anthony, 750 S.W.2d 338, 339 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding). We deny the petition, however, because on March 16, 2006 we affirmed the judgment in the related appeal. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Taft and Nuchia. Publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).