in Re Hubert Warren

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-07-00352-CR

In re Hubert Warren

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM  Opinion

Relator Hubert Warren has filed a petition for writ of mandamus that seeks post-conviction habeas corpus relief on the ground that he was prosecuted under an unconstitutional statute.

An intermediate court of appeals has no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases.  See Ex parte Martinez, 175 S.W.3d 510, 512-13 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding) (citing Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07(3)(a), (b) (Vernon 2005)); Self v. State, 122 S.W.3d 294, 294-95 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2003, no pet.) (same).  The Court of Criminal Appeals and lower courts have recognized that “the exclusive post-conviction remedy in final felony convictions in Texas courts is through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to [article] 11.07.”  Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see Ex parte Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d 260, 261 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.).

Because we have no jurisdiction over what is in effect a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

(Chief Justice Gray notes:  I would deny Warren’s petition for writ of mandamus because he has an adequate legal remedy—an 11.07 writ of habeas corpus.)

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed December 5, 2007

[OT06]