In Re Samad Sefiane v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 1, 2024
• Docket: 09-24-00119-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00119-CR __________________

IN RE SAMAD SEFIANE

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 17-27943 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Samad Sefiane argues that he received

an illegal sentence because the evidence from the trial of his criminal case, which

occurred in 2018, isn’t sufficient to support the jury’s finding that he inflicted a

serious bodily injury on the victim of the assault.1 For relief, Sefiane asks that this

1 Relator was convicted of aggravated family violence assault in the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, in Trial Court Cause Number 17-27943. See Sefiane v. State, No. 09-18-00216-CR, 2019 WL 2439490 (Tex. App.— Beaumont June 12, 2019, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Even though Sefiane didn’t certify that he served a copy of his petition for mandamus on the Respondent and the Real Party in Interest, we suspend that requirement under the circumstances to expedite resolving the complaints that he has raised in his 1 Court order the trial court “to hold a hearing on his application to correct the penal

statute and sentence.”

In a criminal case, the relator has the burden to establish that he lacks an

adequate remedy at law and that the act which he is seeking the Court of Appeals to

compel is ministerial rather than discretionary in nature.2 Before filing this original

proceeding, Sefiane filed an appeal from the conviction he incurred in Trial Court

Cause Number 17-27943 for aggravated family violence assault.3 After we affirmed

his conviction, the judgment of conviction became final and the Court issued its

mandate.

After a mandate issues, the adequate remedy at law available to a defendant

to complain of an alleged error in the judgment requires the judgment’s correction

through the filing of a writ of habeas corpus. 4 What’s more, Article 11.07 of the

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive means by which a

defendant convicted of a felony may challenge his conviction unless the punishment

that was assessed in the judgment included the death penalty. 5

petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (Suspension of Rules); id. 9.5(a) (Service of All Documents Required). 2 See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). 3 See Sefiane, 2019 WL 2439490, at *1; see also Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(b)(2). 4 See Ater, 802 S.W.2d at 243. 5 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.11.07, §§ 3, 5. 2 The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 6

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 30, 2024 Opinion Delivered May 1, 2024 Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

6 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). 3