Opinion
No. 06-16-00013-CV
07-13-2016
IN RE Allen "F" CALTON
Alen ‘F‘ Calton, TDCJ #1123880, Stiles Unit, 3060 FM 3514, Beaumont, TX 77705, for Appellant. Christopher W. Ponder, Asst. District Attorney, Civil Division, 401 W. Bellknap, 9Floor, Fort Worth, TX 76196-0201, for Appellee.
Alen ‘F‘ Calton, TDCJ #1123880, Stiles Unit, 3060 FM 3514, Beaumont, TX 77705, for Appellant.
Christopher W. Ponder, Asst. District Attorney, Civil Division, 401 W. Bellknap, 9th Floor, Fort Worth, TX 76196-0201, for Appellee.
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
OPINION
Opinion by Justice Burgess
Allen "F" Calton, an inmate at the Stiles Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the 67th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. In his mandamus action, Calton asked the trial court to compel Steve Schiller, a former official court reporter for the 213th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, to file transcripts of pretrial hearings that were conducted before Calton's murder trial. At the time Calton filed his mandamus petition with the trial court, he had already perfected a direct appeal from the dismissal of a lawsuit he had filed in the 153rd Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, which raised the same issues and sought essentially the same relief. The trial court determined that it was without jurisdiction to address Calton's petition, and it dismissed the matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Calton appeals, and we affirm.
Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to Section 73.001 of the Texas Government Code. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 73.001 (West 2013). We follow the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals in deciding this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.
Calton's conviction for attempted murder was upheld by the Second Court of Appeals in Calton v. State, No. 2–04–228–CR, 2005 WL 3082202, at *1 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth Nov. 17, 2005, pet. withdrawn) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
Subsequently, we affirmed the 153rd court's dismissal in our opinion in Calton v. Schiller, No. 06–15–00062–CV, 498 S.W.3d 247, 253–54, 2016 WL 3356740, at *5 (Tex.App.—Texarkana June 16, 2016, no pet. h.).
"A district court has mandamus jurisdiction only to enforce its own jurisdiction." Garrett v. Williams, 250 S.W.3d 154, 159 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2008, orig. proceeding) (citing TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 24.011 (West 2004) ). Here, the purpose of Calton's petition for writ of mandamus in the trial court was not to protect the trial court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the trial court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to order the relief requested by Calton, and his petition for a writ of mandamus was appropriately dismissed. See Garrett, 250 S.W.3d at 159 (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.003(b) ).
Moreover, even if the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction, Calton's petition was frivolous. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(b)(4) (West 2002).
--------
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.