IN RE: MICHAEL A. KENNEDY

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tyler.

IN RE: MICHAEL A. KENNEDY, RELATOR MICHAEL A. KENNEDY, Relator v. HON. MARK A. CALHOON, Respondent

NO. 12-17-00203-CR

Decided: June 30, 2017

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael A. Kennedy, a prison inmate acting pro se, has filed this original proceeding seeking recusal of the justices of this Court.1 Relator not only fails to provide the “clear and concise argument” and “appropriate citations to authorities” required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(h), but his criminal case is no longer pending either in the trial court or this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h); see also 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); 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). The applicable rule governing recusal applies to justices in which the case is pending. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3. Under these circumstances, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.2

JUDGMENT

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. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on June 22, 2017, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby denied.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Relator has filed numerous petitions for writ of mandamus, in which he raises this same complaint. He continues to file original proceedings despite our prior rulings. See In re Kennedy, 12-17-00177-CR, 2017 WL 2464692 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 7, 2017, orig. proceeding); (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re Kennedy, 12-17-00162-CR, 2017 WL 2351354 (Tex. App.—Tyler May 31, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re Kennedy, 12-17-00123-CR, 2017 WL 1534040 (Tex. App.—Tyler April 28, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re Kennedy, 12-17-00035-CR, 2017 WL 361195 (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 25, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

2.   On February 15, 2017, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued an abuse of writ order against Relator, in which it found that he (1) filed seven applications regarding his conviction, (2) “continues to raise issues that have been presented and rejected in previous applications or that should have been presented in previous applications[,]” and (3) “[b]ecause of his repetitive claims, ․ Applicant's claims are barred from review under Article 11.07, § 4, and are waived and abandoned by his abuse of the writ.” Ex Parte Kennedy, No. WR-75,385-24 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 15, 2017). Relator has continued, unsuccessfully, to seek relief in the court of criminal appeals. See Ex Parte Kennedy, No. WR-75,385-26 (Tex. Crim. App. April 12, 2017) (denying motion for leave to file application for writ of habeas corpus); see also Ex Parte Kennedy, No. WR-75,385-31 (Tex. Crim. App. June 16, 2017) (taking no action on application for writ of habeas corpus, and dismissing motion to recuse).

By per curiam opinion.