Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00575-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE VICTOR MANUEL ORDONEZ ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Silva and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron1 Relator Victor Manuel Ordonez has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the production of records for his use in preparing an application for writ of habeas corpus. See TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE art. 11.07 (establishing the procedures for an application for writ of habeas corpus in which the applicant seeks relief from a felony judgment imposing a penalty other than death). In his petition for writ of mandamus, 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). relator names both the district clerk and the court reporter as respondents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2 (“In original proceedings other than habeas corpus, the person against whom relief is sought—whether a judge, court, tribunal, officer, or other person—is the respondent.”). Article V, Section 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 for the original jurisdiction of the intermediate courts of appeals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 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 § 22.221(a), (b), (c). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this original proceeding. Specifically, we lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk or court reporter unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See id.; In re Gorham, 705 S.W.3d 793 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2023, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (district clerk); In re Strickhausen, 994 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (court reporter); see also In re Ortiz, No. 14-25-00658-CR, 2025 WL 2355782, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 14, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (district clerk); In re Williams, No. 14-23-00091- 2 CR, 2023 WL 3855777, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 6, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (court reporter). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. JENNY CRON Justice Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b). Delivered and filed on the 10th day of August, 2026. 3