in Re Melton Sell

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 8, 2012
Docket11-12-00321-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Melton Sell (in Re Melton Sell) 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.

Bluebook
in Re Melton Sell, (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Opinion filed November 8, 2012

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-12-00321-CR __________

IN RE MELTON SELL

Original Mandamus Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appearing pro se, relator Melton Sell, a prison inmate, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. In his petition, relator complains that the district judge of the 42nd District Court of Taylor County should be ordered to grant his motion to vacate his plea or correct his sentence by a judgment nunc pro tunc. Finding we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the petition. The substance of the relief relator seeks by mandamus is essentially a request for postconviction habeas corpus relief because he is seeking an order from this court in support of his attempt to set aside his original conviction and sentence. The habeas corpus procedure set out in Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive remedy for felony postconviction relief in state court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5 (West Supp. 2012); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). There is no role for the courts of appeals in the procedure under Article 11.07. See Article 11.07, § 3; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). Furthermore, an application for writ of habeas corpus is generally an adequate remedy that will preclude mandamus relief. In re Piper, 105 S.W.3d 107, 109 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding) (citing Banales v. Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 93 S.W.3d 33, 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (orig. proceeding)). Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

November 8, 2012 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Gray, C.J., 10th Court of Appeals.1

1 Tom Gray, Chief Justice, Court of Appeals, 10th District of Texas at Waco, sitting by assignment to the 11th Court of Appeals.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals
802 S.W.2d 241 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Board of Pardons & Paroles Ex Rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District
910 S.W.2d 481 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1995)
In Re Piper
105 S.W.3d 107 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Melton Sell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-melton-sell-texapp-2012.