in Re Henry Gradney II

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 17, 2011
• Docket: 14-11-00405-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May 17, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00405-CR

IN RE HENRY GRADNEY, II, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

   248th District Court

   Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 125170601010

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            On May 9, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.  See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  In the petition, relator seeks an order directing the First Court of Appeals to grant his motion to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere.

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 Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004).  Because the petition for writ of mandamus is directed toward another court of appeals and is not necessary to enforce this court’s jurisdiction, we have no jurisdiction.  See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b)(1). 

Even if the petition had been directed to this court, we would still have no jurisdiction.  The courts of appeals have concurrent mandamus jurisdiction with the Court of Criminal Appeals in some post-conviction proceedings.  Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Tex.Crim.App.2003).  Relator is seeking post-conviction relief from a felony conviction.  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). 

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

                                                                        PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Brown, and Christopher.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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