in Re Jimmy L. Chambers
This text of in Re Jimmy L. Chambers (in Re Jimmy L. Chambers) 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
Opinion issued August 28, 2018
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-18-00699-CR ——————————— IN RE JIMMY L. CHAMBERS, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Jimmy L. Chambers, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus,
seeking to compel respondent, the Honorable Jan Krocker, to forward his “Writ of
Habeas Corpus under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.07” to the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals.1
1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Jimmy L. Chambers, Case No. 615357- B, in the 184th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Jan Krocker presiding. 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 in 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).
2 Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Lloyd. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re Jimmy L. Chambers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jimmy-l-chambers-texapp-2018.