IN RE: JODY FORD MCCREARY

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tyler.

IN RE: JODY FORD MCCREARY, RELATOR

NO. 12-17-00292-CR

Decided: September 29, 2017

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

Jody Ford McCreary, acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel the Smith County District Clerk to file and transmit certain documents. However, this Court's mandamus authority is limited to (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 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 52 in the court of appeals district; (3) an associate judge of a district or county court appointed by a judge under Chapter 201, Family Code, in the court of appeals district for the judge who appointed the associate judge; or (4) a situation in which a writ of mandamus is necessary to protect the Court's jurisdiction. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West 2004). The district clerk is not a judge, and Relator does not assert that a writ of mandamus directed to the district clerk is necessary to protect this Court's jurisdiction. Consequently, because we do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of Relator's mandamus petition, the petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See In re Eaton, No. 12-15-00118-CR, 2016 WL 6876502, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler, Nov. 22, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 29, 2017

NO. 12-17-00292-CR

JODY FORD MCCREARY, Relator

V.

LOIS ROGERS, DISTRICT CLERK Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Jody Ford McCreary; who is the relator in Cause No. 007-1110-10, pending on the docket of the 7th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on September 26, 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.

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