in Re: Cecil Clayton Jones

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 22, 2007
• Docket: 13-07-00106-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-07-106-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

In re:

CECIL CLAYTON JONES

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

from the 156^th District Court

San Patricio County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez, Justices Yanez and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Relator, Cecil C. Jones, Jr., filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in this Court on February 15, 2007. In this original proceeding, relator contends that the trial court made erroneous findings and failed to analyze and apply the law correctly with regard to relator's previously filed post-conviction writ of habeas corpus.

To obtain mandamus relief in criminal law matters in the courts of appeals, a relator must establish that (1) the act he seeks to compel is ministerial, rather than discretionary in nature, and (2) no other adequate remedy at law is available. State ex rel. Hill v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 67 S.W.3d 177, 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); see Dickens v. Court of Appeals for the Second Supreme Judicial Dist. of Tex., 727 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). However, the courts of appeal have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal matters pertaining to proceedings under article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure; only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, §§ 3, 5 (Vernon 2005); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). Accordingly, we DISMISS relator's petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. p. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 22^nd day of February, 2007.