In Re Brian Matthew Bennett v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00012-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE BRIAN MATTHEW BENNETT

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Cron, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron1

Brian Matthew Bennett filed a pro se pleading in this Court. Although Bennett’s

pleading is unclear, it appears that Bennett contends that prison staff and his fellow

inmates have committed misconduct against him. Bennett does not have a pending

appeal in this Court and he does not reference a judgment or otherwise appealable order.

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Accordingly, we liberally construe this pro se pleading as a petition for writ of mandamus.

See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2 (governing the perfection of appeal in criminal cases),

52 (describing the requirements for filing original proceedings); In re Castle Tex. Prod.

Ltd. P’ship, 189 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding [mand.

denied]) (“The function of the writ of mandamus is to compel action by those who by virtue

of their official or quasi-official positions are charged with a positive duty to act.”). The

petition for writ of mandamus arises from trial court cause number F244-18 in the 66th

District Court of Hill County, Texas. Bennett filed a direct appeal from that cause number

to the Tenth Court of Appeals, and his appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas

Supreme Court in accordance with its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE

ANN. § 73.001; Misc. Docket No. 19-9040 (Tex. June 1, 2019). On appeal, we affirmed

Bennett’s conviction. See Bennett v. State, No. 13-19-00298-CR, 2020 WL 948365, at *3

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 27, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated

for publication).

Article V, § 6 of the Texas Constitution delineates the appellate jurisdiction of the

courts of appeals, and states that the courts of appeals “shall have such other jurisdiction,

original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law.” TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6(a). Section

22.221 of the Texas Government Code provides the main source of original jurisdiction

for the intermediate courts of appeals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221; In re Cook,

394 S.W.3d 668, 671 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, orig. proceeding). In pertinent part, this

section provides that an intermediate appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus

against specified judges in its district and “all other writs necessary to enforce the

jurisdiction of the court.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b), (c).

2
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over Bennett’s request for relief. First, Bennett

has not shown that mandamus is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See id.

§ 22.221(a). Second, Bennett appears to seek relief against prison officials and fellow

inmates, and in the absence of any issues pertaining to the enforcement of our appellate

jurisdiction, we lack mandamus jurisdiction over those individuals. See, e.g., In re

Bledsoe, 532 S.W.3d 826, 827 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, orig. proceeding); In re

Moody, 93 S.W.3d 928, 929 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Carson,

12 S.W.3d 886, 887 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, orig. proceeding). Third, Hill County is

not located within the geographic district for the Thirteenth Court of Appeals but is instead

located within the geographic district for the Tenth Court of Appeals, and we lack

mandamus jurisdiction to issue a writ against the judge of the 66th District Court of Hill

County. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(k) (delineating the counties comprising the

Tenth Court of Appeals District), id. § 22.201(n) (delineating the counties comprising the

Thirteenth Court of Appeals District), id. § 22.221(b), (c) (identifying the judges against

whom a writ may issue). Finally, Bennett’s appeal in our appellate cause number 13-19-

00298-CR was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals by the Texas

Supreme Court, and that transfer did not carry with it any jurisdiction to issue a writ of

mandamus in a separate original proceeding. See Misc. Docket No. 19-9040 (Tex. June

1, 2019) (“It is specifically provided that the cases ordered transferred by this Order shall,

in each instance, not include original proceedings . . . .”); In re Davis, 87 S.W.3d 794, 795

n.1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding); see also In re Yan, No. 13-25-00241-

CV, 2025 WL 1299506, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 5, 2025, orig.

3
proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we dismiss Bennett’s petition for writ of mandamus

and all relief sought therein for lack of jurisdiction.

JENNY CRON
Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the
8th day of January, 2026.

4