In Re: Bernardist D. Lee v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 8, 2024
• Docket: 05-24-00452-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISSED and Opinion Filed July 8, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00452-CV

IN RE BERNARDIST D. LEE, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-9746252

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia In his April 15, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus, relator contends his 1997

murder conviction must be set aside for various reasons, and he requests this Court

compel the trial court to grant him a new trial.

Upon review, relator’s petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See In re

Backusy, No. 05-23-00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July

14, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g), 52.3(h),

52.3(j), 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1), 52.7(a)(2). For example, relator failed to file with

his petition an appendix or record containing documents showing the matter complained of and any other documents material to his claim for relief. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); In re Skinner, No. 05-23-00930-CV, 2023 WL

6618295, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

(explaining that it is relator’s burden to provide the Court with a sufficient record to

show entitlement to mandamus relief). Additionally, relator included but failed to

sign the rule 52.3(j) certification required for consideration of mandamus relief. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re Stewart, No. 05-19-01338-CV, 2020 WL 401764, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (explaining that

our precedent requires “exceptionally strict compliance” with rule 52.3(j)).

Notwithstanding these defects, we lack jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Relator brings a collateral attack on a final conviction and, therefore, his complaint

falls within the scope of a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07

of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE OF CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, not this Court, has exclusive jurisdiction in

final, post-conviction felony proceedings. Id.; Ater v. Eighth Ct. of Appeals, 802

S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (“We are the only court

with jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss this proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.

/Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA 240452F.P05 JUSTICE

–2–