in Re: Joe G. Vera and Florentino Morales, Relators

NO. 07-02-0083-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A FEBRUARY 14, 2002 ______________________________ IN RE JOE G. VERA AND FLORENTINO MORALES _________________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ. Relators Joe G. Vera and Florentino Morales have filed an original petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we order the Respondent, Eldon Moody, Chairman of the Dawson County Democratic Party, to place Joe G. Vera on the ballot for County Judge, and to place Florentino Morales on the ballot for Precinct 2 County Commissioner for the 2002 Dawson County Democratic Primary. For the reasons expressed, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Texas Constitution provides that the Courts of Appeals have appellate jurisdiction co-extensive with the limits of their respective districts. Tex. Const. art. V § 6. Section 22.201 of the Government Code sets forth the counties comprising each of the fourteen court of appeals districts in the state of Texas. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.201 (Vernon 1988). However, Dawson County does not fall within the counties comprising the Seventh Court of Appeals District. Id. § 22.201(h). Furthermore, this matter was not transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court of Texas. That being so, we have no jurisdiction to consider the matter. See Hogan v. G., C. & S.F. Ry. Co., 411 S.W.2d 815, 816 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1966, writ ref'd). Accordingly, the appeal must be and hereby is dismissed. Having been notified by relators that they are in agreement with this dismissal, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. John T. Boyd Chief Justice Do not publish. had no right of appeal and invited him to either file amended certifications showing a right of appeal or demonstrate other grounds for continuing the appeals. Appellant was notified that failure to do so might result in dismissal per Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant timely filed a letter response to this Court’s inquiry. A review of Appellant’s response does not contradict the certifications filed by the trial court. We conclude Appellant has not demonstrated why the appeals should not be dismissed based on the certifications signed by the trial court. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. Patrick A. Pirtle Justice Do not publish.