In re Borunda, 528 S.W.3d 149

Borunda was convicted in justice court for speeding (fine $400) and filed an appeal to the county court with a surety appearance bond; the record does not show the bond filing date.
The State moved for a writ of procedendo asserting the appeal was not timely perfected; the county court granted the writ and dismissed the appeal.
Over a year later Borunda filed a mandamus petition in the 394th District Court challenging the county court’s dismissal; the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Borunda’s attempt to appeal that dismissal to the court of appeals was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; he then filed mandamus in the Texas Supreme Court asking the district court be ordered to consider his petition on the merits.
The Texas Supreme Court held that mandamus proceedings are civil actions and that district courts have general mandamus authority over lower courts in such matters, so the district court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear Borunda’s mandamus petition challenging the county court’s dismissal of his appeal	Borunda: district court has authority to consider mandamus in this civil mandamus proceeding and he lacks other adequate remedy after his appeal route was foreclosed	Respondent: district court lacked jurisdiction to issue mandamus against a county court in a criminal matter; mandamus limited to enforcing the district court’s own jurisdiction	Court: district courts have general mandamus jurisdiction in these circumstances; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was erroneous
Whether Borunda had an adequate remedy at law (precluding mandamus)	Borunda: appeal remedy was foreclosed because his court of appeals appeal was wrongly dismissed	Respondent: appeal was the appropriate remedy; mandamus was improper	Court: mandamus is appropriate because mandamus is a civil proceeding and the erroneous dismissal of Borunda’s appeal left him without an adequate remedy by appeal

Hogan v. Turland, 428 S.W.2d 316 (Tex. 1968) (mandamus proceedings are civil actions)
Grimm v. Garner, 589 S.W.2d 955 (Tex. 1979) (district courts have substantive power to issue writs where courts of law or equity would have power)
Winfrey v. Chandler, 318 S.W.2d 59 (Tex. 1958) (district courts may not exercise general supervisory control over county courts in criminal proceedings beyond constitutional/statutory limits)
Thompson v. Velasquez, 155 S.W.3d 551 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (district courts possess general mandamus jurisdiction over municipal, justice, and county courts in criminal matters)