in Re Christopher W. Harrison v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 17, 2010
• Docket: 14-10-00498-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 17, 2010.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

___________________

NO. 14-10-00498-CR

IN RE CHRISTOPHER W. HARRISON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Christopher W. Harrison, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice who is proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.  See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  In his petition, Harrison complains that respondent, the Honorable Denise Collins, has not ruled on his post-conviction writ of habeas corpus filed in the 208th District Court of Harris County in trial court cause number 678421.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 11.07, 11.59 (Vernon 2005 & Supp. 2009). 

While the courts of appeals have mandamus jurisdiction in criminal matters, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to final post-conviction felony proceedings.  Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).  This court has no authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a district court judge to rule on matters seeking post-conviction relief in felony convictions in which the judgment is final.  See In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).  Should it be necessary to complain about an action or inaction of the convicting court, the applicant may seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.  Id. at 718. 

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

                                                                        PER CURIAM

Consists of Justices Brown, Sullivan, and Christopher.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).