In Re Brian Tatum v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 17, 2025
• Docket: 01-25-00256-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued April 17, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NOS. 01-25-00255-CR 01-25-00256-CR —————————— IN RE BRIAN O’KEITH TATUM, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Prohibition

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Relator Brian O’Keith Tatum has filed a “Writ of Prohibition and Stay of

Mandate Pending Review,” complaining about the State’s “non-compliance to

1 The underlying cases are Brian Tatum v. State, Nos. 01-23-00091-CR, 01-23- 00092-CR, 2024 WL 86511 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 9, 2024, pet. ref’d). This Court affirmed Relator’s convictions in 2024, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused Tatum’s request for discretionary review the same year. See id. article 11.07” and arguing that “the criminal trial [should be] remanded for

transparency and accuracy.”

Relator’s convictions are final, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has

refused his petition for review. See Tatum v State, Nos. 01-23-00091-CR & 01-23-

00092-CR, 2024 WL 86511 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 9, 2024, pet. ref’d).

Thus, any relief related to relator’s convictions can only be granted by a post-

conviction writ of habeas corpus. Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has

jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings, which are governed

by Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 11.07; Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n. 8 (Tex. Crim. App.

1996); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth

Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715,

717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). “Courts of appeals

have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony

cases. Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals.” In re Briscoe, 230

S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (internal

citations omitted).

Accordingly, we dismiss Tatum’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.

2 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Caughey.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).