In Re David Cornett v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 26, 2023
• Docket: 10-23-00305-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

Nos. 10-23-00298-CR; 10-23-00299-CR; 10-23-00300-CR; 10-23-00301-CR; 10-23-00302-CR; 10-23-00303-CR; 10-23-00304-CR; 10-23-00305-CR; 10-23- 00306-CR; 10-23-00307-CR; 10-23-00308-CR; 10-23-00309-CR; and 10-23-00310-CR

IN RE DAVID CORNETT

Original Proceeding

From the 40th District Court Ellis County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 37235CR, 37236CR, 37237CR, 37238CR, 37239CR, 37240CR, 37241CR, 37242CR, 37243CR, 37244CR, 37245CR, 37246CR, and 37247CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, David Cornett, was convicted of 13 offenses in 2015. In 13 petitions for a

writ of mandamus, filed on October 10, 2023, relator requests that we order the

respondent, the judge of the 40th District Court in Ellis County, to reform the judgments

in all 13 convictions to delete the cumulation orders and render new judgments ordering

the 13 sentences to run concurrently.

There are procedural problems with these petitions, such as, respondent and real

party in interest, the State, were not served as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5. However, to expedite this decision, we use Rule 2 to

suspend the operation of these rules. TEX. R. APP. P. 2.

As we have previously informed relator, see In re Cornett, No. 10-22-00191-CR,

2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 4470 (Tex. App.—Waco June 29, 2022, orig. proceeding) (not

designated for publication), his complaint is a post-conviction attack on otherwise final

judgments of felony convictions. We have no jurisdiction to grant post-conviction relief

in an attack on a final felony conviction. See TEX. CRIM. PROC. arts. 11.07; 11.05; Ater v.

Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) ("[The Court of

Criminal Appeals is] the only court with jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony

proceedings."). Relator’s relief, if any can be obtained, is through an article 11.07 writ

proceeding which relator asserts he has already attempted without success.

Accordingly, relator’s petitions for a writ of mandamus are denied.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Petitions denied Opinion delivered and filed October 26, 2023 Do not publish [OT06]

In re Cornett Page 2