in Re Louanne Larson ( 2016 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-16-00076-CR
IN RE LOUANNE LARSON
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Louanne Larson has petitioned this Court for mandamus relief. Larson complains that
the district clerk either did not send the complete record or sent the wrong record to this Court
when Larson appealed the trial court’s most recent denial of DNA testing. See Larson v. State,
06-15-00178-CR, 2016 WL 1268003 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 1, 2016, pet. ref’d).
Specifically, Larson claims that an affidavit was not included in the appellate record provided to
this Court for that appeal. Larson would have this Court compel the Marion County District Clerk
to send this Court documents—a motion for DNA testing, an affidavit, and some exhibits—that
were filed in the trial court in Larson’s request for DNA testing.
Our jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus is constrained by statute. We may issue a writ
of mandamus only against a “judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district” or
when “necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West
2004). We could grant Larson’s request only if mandamus were necessary to enforce this Court’s
jurisdiction. From the context of her petition, we infer that Larson is complaining about our recent
opinion on her appeal from the trial court’s denial of her request for DNA testing. This Court
acquired jurisdiction over that appeal and issued an opinion. Thus, there is no question of
enforcing our jurisdiction.
Larson has not explained how mandamus is necessary to enforce this Court’s jurisdiction.1
The respondent, the Marion County District Clerk, is not a judge of a district court or county court
1
For example, in Click v. Tyra, 867 S.W.2d 406 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no pet.), the appellants posted
a cash deposit in lieu of an appeal bond to perfect their appeal; the district clerk refused to provide an appellate record
2
in the Sixth Appellate District of the State of Texas and hence is not subject to our mandamus
jurisdiction under Section 22.221(b)(1) of the Texas Government Code. Mandamus not being
“necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of” this Court, we have no authority to grant the relief sought.
See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a).
We deny Larson’s petition.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: May 3, 2016
Date Decided: May 4, 2016
Do Not Publish
until appellants paid the record fee in cash. The reviewing court held that the clerk could not require this additional
payment, a cash deposit having been posted. The appellate court entertained and granted the request for mandamus
relief “[t]o protect [their] appellate jurisdiction and to insure the integrity of the appellate process.” Id. at 407.
3