in Re Edward Roy Newsome

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 19, 2016
Docket14-16-00291-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Edward Roy Newsome (in Re Edward Roy Newsome) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in Re Edward Roy Newsome, (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Opinion filed April 19, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00291-CR

IN RE EDWARD ROY NEWSOME, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 179th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 441673

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 8, 2016, relator Edward Roy Newsome filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Kristin M. Guiney, presiding judge of the 179th District Court of Harris County, to vacate an alleged order that disqualified relator’s counsel. The alleged disqualification order is not part of the record.

This court affirmed relator’s conviction for the felony of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in 1988 in the trial court below, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused his petition for discretionary review. See Newsome v. State, No. C14–87–00048–CR, 1988 WL 26430 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). Therefore, relator’s conviction is final.

Because relator’s petition involves a final post-conviction felony proceeding, it is governed by Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp.2014); see also id. at art. 11.07 § 5 (stating that, “[a]fter conviction the procedure outlined in this Act shall be exclusive and any other proceeding shall be void and of no force and effect in discharging the prisoner.”). Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings. Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

We therefore dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Jamison. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Padieu, Philippe, Relator v. Court of Appeals of Texas, 5th District
392 S.W.3d 115 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Edward Roy Newsome, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-edward-roy-newsome-texapp-2016.