IN RE: MICHAEL A. KENNEDY, RELATOR MICHAEL A. KENNEDY, Relator v. HON. MARK V. CALHOON, Respondent
Relator, Michael A. Kennedy, has filed this original proceeding, in which he raises various complaints regarding his criminal conviction in trial court cause number 29326, including challenges to the dissemination of documents, the conducting of discovery, the suppression of documents, conflicts of interest, and the denial of a motion to dismiss counsel. He further alleges violations of due process and of his right to represent himself.
However, Relator's conviction has been final for several years, and cause number 29326 is not currently pending in the trial court. See Kennedy v. State, No. 12–11–00041–CR, 2012 WL 3201924, at *8 (Tex. App.–Tyler Aug. 8, 2012, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming judgment on punishment); see also Kennedy v. State, No. 12–08–00246–CR, 2009 WL 4829989, at *3–4 (Tex. App.–Tyler Dec. 16, 2009, pet. stricken) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming judgment of conviction). Accordingly, Relator's petition for writ of mandamus is an attempt to collaterally attack his conviction. This Court, however, lacks authority to issue writs of mandamus regarding complaints that may only be raised by a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196-97 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). For this reason, we dismiss Relator's petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.
ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Michael A. Kennedy; who is the relator in Cause No. 29326, pending on the docket of the 3rd Judicial District Court of Anderson County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on March 23, 2017, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that it lacks jurisdiction, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
By per curiam opinion.