in Re Johanson Lee Watson, Relator
This text of 253 S.W.3d 319 (in Re Johanson Lee Watson, Relator) 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
Johanson Lee Watson, an indigent inmate, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his application for writ of habeas corpus. Through the purported application for habeas corpus, he attempts to nullify his prior felony conviction. For the reason expressed below, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
*320 The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. See id.; Board of Pardons and Paroles ex. rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex.Crim.App.1995); In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (original proceeding) (stating that courts of appeal have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases). So, to complain about any action, or inaction, of the convicting court, the applicant may seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals. See In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d at 196.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
253 S.W.3d 319, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 2250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-johanson-lee-watson-relator-texapp-2008.