in Re Ime Okon Ekwere
Opinion
Opinion issued August 31, 2018
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
Because his petition reflects that he has filed an article 11.07 application for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, his mandamus petition relates to a pending post-conviction habeas corpus application involving a final felony conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015). Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings. See Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). “To complain about any action, or inaction, of the convicting court, the applicant may seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.” In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196–97 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); see, e.g., Benson v. Dist. Clerk, 331 S.W.3d 431, 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (court of criminal appeals conditionally granted mandamus application against district clerk to compel performance of ministerial duty to receive and file article 11.07 application). This Court, however, has no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings under article 11.07. See In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d at 197; In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).
Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Caughey. Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
in Re Ime Okon Ekwere (in Re Ime Okon Ekwere) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.