in Re Gregory Ray

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 21, 2011
• Docket: 14-11-00509-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 21, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00509-CR

IN RE GREGORY RAY, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11092650

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            On June 13, 2011, relator, Gregory Ray, an inmate confined in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.  See Tex. Gov’t Code §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.1.  In the petition, relator asks this court to direct the presiding judge of the 179th District Court to provide him with a copy of the record in his criminal case so that he may file a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus.[1] 

            This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code.  Section 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to:  (1) writs against a district court judge or county court judge in the court of appeals’ district, and (2) all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals' jurisdiction.  Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. 

The courts of appeals have limited mandamus jurisdiction over criminal law matters.  Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).  To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision.  State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding that article 11.07 provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction).  This court lacks jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief in matters related to a post-conviction writ application.  See McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to order the trial court to rule on applicant’s post-conviction writ of habeas corpus.); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (concluding that intermediate courts of appeals have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal in matters pertaining to article 11.07 writs).

Because the relief that relator seeks relates to post-conviction habeas corpus relief, we do not have jurisdiction over the complaint.  See In re Trevino, 79 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, orig. proceeding) (holding that court of appeals did not have jurisdiction to issue mandamus directing district court to forward copy of record to inmate for purposes of pursuing post-conviction relief).

            Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is ordered dismissed.

                                                            PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Boyce.

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

---

[1]  We note that relator’s petition for writ of mandamus references trial court cause number 1190265 in the 179th District Court.  According to Harris County JIMS, relator entered a plea of guilty to injury to a child causing serious bodily injury in cause number 1109265 in the 228th District Court in Harris Court.