In Re D.M. v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00072-CV

IN RE D.M.

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
MEMORANDUM OPINION

D.M.,1 proceeding pro se, has petitioned this Court for mandamus relief. D.M. argues

that the Franklin County district clerk refused to file an appeal challenging D.M.’s requirements

to register as a sex offender based on his attorney misleading him “to plea[d] guilty to

registration as a sex offender.”2

This Court has limited mandamus jurisdiction. We may issue a writ of mandamus only

against a judge of a district or county court in the Texas court of appeals district. TEX. GOV’T

CODE ANN. § 22.221(c) (Supp.). That jurisdiction does not extend to other parties, such as

district attorneys or district clerks, unless such mandamus relief would be necessary to enforce

our jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a) (Supp.); see In re Shugart, 528 S.W.3d

794, 796 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, orig. proceeding). D.M. seeks a writ of mandamus

against a district clerk, but we lack mandamus jurisdiction over the Franklin County district

clerk. We find no present circumstance that would make a writ of mandamus issued against the

clerk necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Lacking jurisdiction, we dismiss D.M.’s petition for

a writ of mandamus.

Charles van Cleef
Justice

Date Submitted: November 5, 2024
Date Decided: November 6, 2024

1
D.M. included documents in his petition stating that he is seventeen years old. Out of an abundance of caution, this
court will use his initials. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10.
2
D.M. does not raise any issues complaining of an action or inaction by the trial court.
2