in Re Quinton Jamond Haynes

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 21, 2011
• Docket: 14-11-00322-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed April 21, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00322-CR

NO. 14-11-00323-CR

IN RE QUINTON JAMOND HAYNES, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 970848 & 970849

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            On April 13, 2011, relator Quinton Jamond Haynes filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.  See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  In four issues, relator challenges his judgments of conviction for two aggravated robbery offenses.  He complains that the Honorable George Godwin, presiding judge of the 174th District Court of Harris County, entered void orders and subjected him to double jeopardy.  Relator also asserts that he is innocent of the charges and was denied effective assistance of counsel.

            In 2005, relator entered guilty pleas to two aggravated robbery offenses, and the trial court sentenced him to confinement for forty years in each case, with the sentences to be served concurrently.  This court affirmed relator’s convictions on direct appeal.  See Haynes v. State, Nos. 14-05-00235-CR & 14-05-00236-CR, 2005 WL 2431105 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 1, 2005, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication).  The trial court’s judgments of conviction are final.  Relator asserts that his aggravated robbery convictions are void because the trial court did not make an affirmative finding of the use of a deadly weapon.  He contends that his sentences are illegal and seeks mandamus relief to correct them.

            We lack jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.  Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to post-conviction relief from a final felony conviction.  See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 1991); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07; Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding that article 11.07 provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction).  

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                                        PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Boyce.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).