Ex Parte Terry Lee Nelson

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00213-CR

EX PARTE TERRY LEE NELSON

Original Proceeding

From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. 32,660-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Terry Lee Nelson has filed a “motion for the reinstatement of appeal rights and discretionary review.”1 In his motion, he seeks what is in effect post-conviction habeas relief, alleging actual innocence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and complaints about the trial court. He asks that we review his case, reinstate his appeal rights, and order a discretionary review.

An intermediate court of appeals has no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. See Ex parte Martinez, 175 S.W.3d 510, 512-13 (Tex.

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.

App.—Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07(3)(a), (b) (Vernon 2005)); Self v. State, 122 S.W.3d 294, 294-95 (Tex. App.—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 Nelson’s motion.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed August 7, 2014 Do not publish [OT06]

Ex parte Nelson Page 2