in Re Nkrumah Lamumba Valier

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 25, 2017
Docket01-17-00058-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Nkrumah Lamumba Valier (in Re Nkrumah Lamumba Valier) 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 Nkrumah Lamumba Valier, (Tex. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Opinion issued April 25, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-17-00058-CR ——————————— IN RE NKRUMAH LAMUMBA VALIER, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Nkrumah Lamumba Valier, incarcerated and proceeding pro se, has

filed a petition for a writ of mandamus.1 Relator seeks issuance of a writ to compel

respondent, the Honorable Jan Krocker, to rule on a post-conviction motion to void

his felony conviction for sexual assault.

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Nkrumah Lamumba Valier, Cause No. 1030025, in the 184th District Court of Harris County, the Honorable Jan Krocker presiding. Relator’s petition reflects that he seeks relief from a final felony conviction.

Because his petition involves a final post-conviction felony proceeding, article 11.07

of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure governs and provides the exclusive means

to challenge the conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon

2015); Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2013) (citations omitted); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v.

Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)

(citation omitted). Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in

final post-conviction proceedings. In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (citation omitted); see In re Briscoe, 230

S.W.3d 196, 196–97 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding)

(“Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals.”). Accordingly, we do not

have jurisdiction over relator’s mandamus petition.

We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Massengale.

Do not publish.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

In Re Briscoe
230 S.W.3d 196 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
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 McAfee
53 S.W.3d 715 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Padieu, Philippe, Relator v. Court of Appeals of Texas, 5th District
392 S.W.3d 115 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Nkrumah Lamumba Valier, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nkrumah-lamumba-valier-texapp-2017.