In Re: Larry Mark Kalmowitz v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-24-00291-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: §

LARRY MARK KALMOWITZ, § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR §

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Larry Mark Kalmowitz, acting pro se, filed this original proceeding to challenge the
denial of his affidavit of inability to pay by Respondent, the Honorable Cass Callaway, sitting by
assignment in the City of Mineola Municipal Court. 1
“Each court of appeals or a justice of a court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus
and all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §
22.221(a) (West Supp. 2024). An appellate court “may issue all writs of mandamus, agreeable to
the principles of law regulating those writs, against a judge of a district, statutory county,
statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district.” Id. § 22.221(b).
Additionally, an appellate court may issue all writs of mandamus against: (1) a judge of a district
court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under Chapter 52, Code of Criminal
Procedure, in the court of appeals district; or (2) 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. Id. § 22.221(c). But we lack authority to issue a writ
of mandamus against a municipal court judge unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.
In re Chang, 176 S.W.3d 451, 452 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, orig. proceeding) (per

1
The mandamus record before us does not clearly reveal the identity of any Real Party in Interest.
curiam); see In re Lee, No. 07-17-00425-CV, 2017 WL 6459544, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
Dec. 14, 2017, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.); In re Stokes, No. 02-14-00288-CV,
2014 WL 5035547, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 17, 2014, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)
(mem. op.).
In the present case, Relator has not shown that mandamus relief is necessary to enforce
this Court’s jurisdiction. Nor does this Court foresee how the denial of an affidavit of inability to
pay by a municipal court judge would impact this Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, we
conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this original proceeding. We dismiss the petition for writ
of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions are overruled as moot.

Opinion delivered October 9, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

2
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 9, 2024

NO. 12-24-00291-CV

LARRY MARK KALMOWITZ,
Relator
V.

HON. JUDGE CASS CALLAWAY,
Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Larry
Mark Kalmowitz; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-24-00281-CV and a party to
trial court cause number 2024-477, pending on the docket of the City of Mineola Municipal
Court of Wood County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on
September 30, 2024, 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.