in Re: Arthur Roy Morrison

Opinion

Dismissed and Opinion Filed April 28, 2015

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-00519-CV

IN RE ARTHUR ROY MORRISON, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F07-55832-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Myers, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Francis Relator filed this petition for writ of injunction requesting that the Court enjoin the

enforcement of the judgment rendered against him in the criminal case from which this

mandamus arises. Relator’s attempt to enjoin enforcement of the judgment in this case

represents a collateral attack on his conviction. The only proper means of collaterally attacking a

final felony conviction is via petition for writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the code of

criminal procedure. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5 (West Supp. 2014) (“After

conviction the procedure outlined in this Act shall be exclusive and any other proceeding shall be

void and of no force and effect in discharging the prisoner.”); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals,

802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (in granting writ of mandamus

to vacate judgment of conviction, court of appeals usurped the exclusive authority of court of

criminal appeals to grant post-conviction relief). This Court has no jurisdiction over complaints

that should be raised by post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings brought under article 11.07. See TEX. CODE CRIM. P. Ann. arts. 11.05, 11.07 (West 2005 & Supp. 2014). We DISMISS the

petition for writ of injunction.

150519F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE

–2–