in Re: Robert E. Valcik

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 27, 2006
• Docket: 13-06-00390-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                             NUMBER 13-06-390-CR

                         COURT OF APPEALS

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE:  ROBERT EUGENE VALCIK

      Original Proceeding On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Castillo and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Castillo

Relator, Robert Eugene Valcik, has filed an original proceeding which we construe as an application seeking post-conviction habeas relief from a final felony conviction.^[1]  This Court has no jurisdiction over such request.  See Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).

Analysis

This Court's habeas corpus jurisdiction is appellate only; we have no jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus in criminal matters.  Denby v. State, 627 S.W.2d 435, 435 (Tex. App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 1981, original proceeding).  The power to issue writs of habeas corpus in criminal matters is expressly reserved to the Court of Criminal Appeals, the District Courts, the County Courts, and any judge of such courts.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.05 (Vernon 2005).  Moreover, the Court of Criminal Appeals has sole jurisdiction to grant post‑conviction habeas corpus relief from a final felony conviction.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon 2005); Keene, 910 S.W.2d at 483.   Thus, we have neither original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal cases nor post‑conviction habeas corpus jurisdiction in felony cases. Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.BSan Antonio 1999, no pet.); see Tex. Gov't Code Ann. ' 22.221 (Vernon Supp. 2005). 

Conclusion

Because we are without jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus relief, we dismiss relator's original proceeding.^[2]                                                                   

ERRLINDA CASTILLO

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 27th day  of July, 2006.

---

^[1] See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1.  Relator requests that we vacate the trial court judgment.  We observe that he previously filed and voluntarily dismissed a direct appeal of the judgment in the underlying burglary of a habitation case.  See Valcik v. State, No. 13-03-138-CR, Tex. App. LEXIS 3838 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi May 1, 2003, no pet. h.) (not designated for publication).

^[2] We may issue all  writs of mandamus, agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs, against a judge of a district or county court in our district. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. ' 22.221(b) (Vernon Supp. 2005). We may also issue writs of mandamus and all other writs necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. ' 22.221(a) (Vernon Supp. 2005).   Mandamus issues only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy at law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). Thus, even if we construed relator's request as a petition for mandamus relief, we would still dismiss because the request is beyond the scope of our mandamus authority.