in Re Keith Edward Hendricks
Opinion
Opinion issued January 24, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
Because relator’s petition reflects that he has filed an article 11.07 application for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, relator’s mandamus petition relates to a pending post-conviction habeas corpus application involving a final felony conviction. See TEX. CODE. CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. 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 pertaining to pending proceedings under article 11.07. See In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 197 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); 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 Justices Keyes, Higley, and Landau. Do not publish.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
in Re Keith Edward Hendricks (in Re Keith Edward Hendricks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.