Ex Parte Craig MacK

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 12, 2014
• Docket: 10-14-00356-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00356-CR

EX PARTE CRAIG MACK

From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013-2073-C2 & 2013-2331-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Craig Mack has filed a “motion for self-representation” and supporting affidavit

that seeks what is in effect post-conviction habeas relief.1 He alleges ineffective

assistance of counsel in connection with his felony plea bargain and denial of his

alleged attempts to represent himself. Among other things, he seeks a right to appeal.

An intermediate court of appeals has no jurisdiction over a post-conviction

application for writ of habeas corpus in a felony case. See Ex parte Martinez, 175 S.W.3d

510, 512-13 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 11.07(3)(a), (b)); Self v. State, 122 S.W.3d 294, 294-95 (Tex. App.—

1 The motion lacks proof of service. A copy of all documents presented to the Court must be served on all parties (i.e., the district attorney) and must contain proof of service. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, 52.2. To expedite this matter, we implement Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to suspend these requirements. Id. 2. Eastland 2003, no pet.) (same). The Court of Criminal Appeals and this court have

recognized that “the exclusive post-conviction remedy in final felony convictions in

Texas courts is through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to [article] 11.07.” Olivo v.

State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see Ex parte Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d

260, 261 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.). Furthermore, the courts of appeals do not

have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters. Ex parte Hearon, 3

S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, orig. proceeding) (citing Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d

833, 835 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.); and Sanders v. State, 771 S.W.2d 645,

650 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1989, pet. ref’d)); Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Tex.

App.—El Paso 1994, orig. proceeding).

Because we have no jurisdiction over what is in effect a post-conviction habeas

corpus proceeding in a felony case, we dismiss Mack’s motion.

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed December 11, 2014 Do not publish [OT06]

Ex parte Mack Page 2