Full text
in Re Darren Lee Capistran
NUMBER 13-22-00380-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE DARREN LEE CAPISTRAN
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa1
Relator Darren Lee Capistran filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Goliad County District Clerk and administrators for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to correct his jail time credit. We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.
In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish *2 both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding); In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).
Article V, § 6 of the Texas Constitution delineates the appellate jurisdiction of the courts of appeals, and states that the courts of appeals “shall have such other jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law.” TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6(a); see Powell v. Hocker, 516 S.W.3d 488, 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). The main source of original jurisdiction for the courts of appeals is provided by § 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221; In re Cook, 394 S.W.3d 668, 671 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, orig. proceeding). In pertinent part, this section provides that the intermediate appellate courts may issue writs of mandamus against specified judges in our district and “all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b); see In re State ex rel. Best, 616 S.W.3d 594, 599 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this original proceeding. We have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against individuals or entities other than those *3 specified in the government code unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b); see, e.g., In re Carson, 12 S.W.3d 886, 887 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, orig. proceeding) (concluding that the court lacked mandamus jurisdiction over the operating officer of an inmate trust fund); In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“We have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless such is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.”); see also In re Ghose, No. 14-20-00464-CR, 2020 WL 3863188, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 9, 2020, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding that the court lacked mandamus jurisdiction against a jail). Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.
LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).
Delivered and filed on the 22nd day of August, 2022.
Footnotes
[1] See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).