In Re Herbert Feist v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Herbert Feist v. the State of Texas (In Re Herbert Feist v. the State of Texas) 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.
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-23-00298-CR __________________
IN RE HERBERT FEIST
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding 252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 39,295 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a mandamus petition, Herbert Feist asks this Court to compel the trial court
to provide a copy of one of Feist’s previous applications for a writ of habeas corpus,
which Feist indicates the Court of Criminal Appeals denied without a written order
earlier this year, appoint counsel, and hold a hearing on issues presented in the
application for a writ of habeas corpus. 1
1Additionally, Feist complains that Board of Pardons and Paroles added 7
years to his 40-year sentence without providing notice or an attorney. Feist contends he is being held illegally after serving 35 years of flat time and over 11 years on 1 Although the Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive mandamus power over
matters relating to post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings, when no article 11.07
application is pending an intermediate appellate court may consider a mandamus
petition alleging that a district judge refused to rule on a motion. Padieu v. Court of
Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig.
proceeding). But “[o]nce general jurisdiction has expired, and absent direction from
a higher court, a trial court can act only if, and to the extent, it is authorized to do so
by a specific statutory source.” Skinner v. State, 305 S.W.3d 593, 594 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2010). Moreover, to obtain mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must
show that 1) he has no adequate remedy at law, and 2) what he seeks to compel is
ministerial, involving no discretion. In re State ex rel. Best, 616 S.W.3d 594, 599
(Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (orig. proceeding).
The trial court’s general jurisdiction over Trial Cause Number 39,295 expired
decades ago. Feist does not direct this Court to a new motion that Feist has properly
filed in Trial Cause Number 39,295, nor does he explain why the trial court has a
ministerial duty at this time to appoint counsel, to hold a hearing, or to provide copies
parole. He complains that in 2014 the Board of Pardons and Paroles illegally took his street time and good time. These complaints are matters that would be raised through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals, not through a mandamus petition seeking relief from a trial court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, sec. 3. 2 of a previous habeas application so that Feist may refile it. We deny the petition for
a writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on October 3, 2023 Opinion Delivered October 4, 2023 Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Herbert Feist v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-herbert-feist-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.