in Re: Ezra Donnell

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 31, 2006
• Docket: 12-06-00093-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                NO. 12-06-00092-CV

NO. 12-06-00093-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§         

IN RE: EZRA DONNELL,  §          ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Ezra Donnell seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the Honorable David V. Wilson, Judge of the 217th Judicial District Court, Angelina County, Texas, to either loan him the record from his criminal trial or, alternatively, conduct a hearing on his motion for loan of the record.  Donnell is requesting the record for preparation of an application for postconviction writ of habeas corpus in two felony cases.

            Courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over postconviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. § 11.07, § 3 (Vernon 2005); Board of Pardons and Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (jurisdiction to grant postconviction habeas relief lies exclusively with court of criminal appeals).  Because Donnell requests the record for purposes of pursuing postconviction relief in two felony cases, we conclude that we have no jurisdiction to consider the merits of his petition.  See In re Trevino, 79 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2002, orig. proceeding); but cf. In re Bunch, No. 07-03-00103-CV, 2003 WL 21140912, at * 1 (Tex. App.–Amarillo May 16, 2003, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication) (holding that appellate court had no jurisdiction to require district court to provide copy or loan record, but could direct court to conduct hearing on relator’s motion for record).  Therefore, Donnell’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

                                                                                                     JAMES T. WORTHEN   

                                                                                                                 Chief Justice

Opinion delivered March 31, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(PUBLISH)