in Re Edward Newsome

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 11, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00521-CR

IN RE EDWARD R. NEWSOME, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS

179th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 441673

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Edward R. Newsome filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relator seeks to challenge his 1986 conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, asserting that he has newly discovered evidence. This court affirmed relator’s conviction in 1988, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused his petition for discretionary review. See Newsome v. State, No. C14-87-00048-CR, 1988 WL

2

26430 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). Therefore, relator’s conviction is final.

Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to final post-conviction felony proceedings. Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Relator asserts that he filed a petition for writ of mandamus on or about May 20, 2013, in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, but he has not been notified that his petition was received. He also asserts that he filed a notice of appeal in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on March 28, 2013, and no action has been taken.

It appears that relator is seeking to compel action by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. This court lacks jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(d).

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Donovan. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2.