IN RE: CHRISTINE NORMAN (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By petition for writ of mandamus, pro se relator Christine Norman seeks to compel the Honorable Louis V. Saenz, the County and District Attorney for Cameron County, Texas, acting in his official capacity, to produce copies of requested “public documents” pertaining to a criminal case, State v. Manzanares, No. 2005-CR-889-D, in the 103rd Judicial District Court.² Norman asserts that she made two requests for the records under the Texas Open Records Act and that Saenz has ignored her requests. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 552.001–552.353 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.) (codifying the Texas Open Records Act).

A court of appeals may issue writs of mandamus against: (1) a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district; (2) a judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under the code of criminal procedure in the court of appeals district; or (3) an associate judge of a district or county court appointed by a judge under the family code in the court of appeals district for the judge who appointed the associate judge. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). Further, a court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus that is “necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. § 22.221(a).

We do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ directed to Saenz under the conditions at issue here. See id. § 22.221(a),(b). Further, while the Texas Open Records Act provides for mandamus relief in certain circumstances, it does not grant original jurisdiction to the appellate courts to issue such writs. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 552.321 (stating that “a requestor” may file suit for a writ of mandamus compelling a governmental body to comply with the open records act “in a district court for the county in which the main offices of the governmental body are located”); see In re Turner, 998 S.W.2d 935 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Garner v. Gately, 909 S.W.2d 61, 62 (Tex. App.—Waco 1995, no writ) (per curiam); Johnson v. Lynaugh, 789 S.W.2d 704, 705–06 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st. Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding); see also In re Brown, No. 03-14-00696-CV, 2014 WL 5802016, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 7, 2014, no pet.) (mem.op.).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this original proceeding. Accordingly, we DISMISS the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We express no opinion on the merits of Norman's request under the Texas Open Records Act.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

2.   This case has previously generated a separate appeal and original proceeding. See generally In re Manzanares, No. 13-17-00608-CR, 2017 WL 4942849, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 30, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (dismissing a pro se petition for writ of mandamus filed by Manzanares seeking to compel his trial counsel to provide him with the attorney-client file generated during the course of representing Manzanares in his murder trial); Manzanares v. State, No. 13–06–00307–CR, 2008 WL 5608261, at *1 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi Apr. 29, 2008, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming relator's conviction for murder).

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez 1 FN1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).