in Re M.S. Carriers, Inc. and Antonio Gonzalez

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-01-187-CV IN RE M.S. CARRIERS, INC. AND ANTONIO GONZALEZ Original Proceeding                                                                                                                 O P I N I O N                                                                                                                       Respondent, the Honorable David Pareya, Justice of the Peace for Precinct No. 3, McLennan County, is conducting an inquest regarding the death of a Department of Public Safety trooper who died from injuries sustained when his car collided with a semi owned by Relator M. S. Carriers, Inc. and operated by Relator Antonio Gonzalez, an employee of M. S. Carriers. In accordance with federal regulations, M. S. Carriers required Gonzalez to provide a urine specimen to be analyzed for certain prohibited substances. Respondent issued a subpoena in connection with the inquest proceeding to obtain a portion of the specimen. Pursuant to the subpoena, a DPS laboratory technician took possession of the specimen and transported it to a DPS laboratory in Austin for independent testing. Relators seek a writ of mandamus from this Court compelling Respondent to return the specimen or to deposit the specimen with an appropriate agency for safekeeping without conducting the contemplated additional testing.       Section 22.221(b) of the Government Code prescribes the bounds of our mandamus jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov. Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001). According to section 22.221(b), this Court has jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus against the judges of the district and county courts in this district and against a district judge acting as a magistrate in a court of inquiry under chapter 52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Id. Our mandamus jurisdiction does not extend to the justice courts. See Easton v. Franks, 842 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); Simpson v. Morgan, 779 S.W.2d 509, 510 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1989, orig. proceeding).       Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.                                                                    PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Davis,       Justice Vance, and       Justice Gray Writ dismissed for want of jurisdiction Opinion delivered and filed June 14, 2001 Do not publish and made efforts to keep the binding devices hidden from the jury at all times. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Silvas handcuffed and shackled throughout the trial. We overrule Silvas’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.   BILL VANCE Justice  Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Vance, and Justice Reyna Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed January 3, 2007 Do not publish [CRPM]  Â