In Re Samad Sefiane v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Samad Sefiane v. the State of Texas (In Re Samad Sefiane v. the State of Texas) 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.
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-25-00064-CR __________________
IN RE SAMAD SEFIANE
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 17-27943-B __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Samad Sefiane 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). His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Id. In a petition
for a writ of mandamus, Sefiane claims his twenty-year sentence for assault is illegal
because it was based on false evidence that he caused serious bodily injury to the
1 complainant, an inapplicable jury instruction on serious bodily injury, and
ineffective assistance of counsel due to the trial counsel’s failure to present medical
expert testimony to the jury. He denies that he caused serious bodily injury to the
complainant and argues the offense he committed (as opposed to the offense for
which he has been convicted and sentenced) is punishable as a state jail felony
offense. He asks this Court to compel the trial court to discharge Sefiane from his
“illegal” twenty-year sentence.
To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal case, a relator must demonstrate that
(1) he has no other adequate remedy at law, and (2) the act sought to be compelled
is ministerial. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App.
2013). “A trial court has no ‘general’ jurisdiction after a conviction becomes final.”
In re Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., No. WR-95,689-01, 2025 WL 907711, at * 2 (Tex.
Crim. App. Mar. 26, 2025) (not yet reported). Thereafter, any jurisdiction must be
conferred by the Texas Constitution or by statute, and “any provision bestowing
post-finality jurisdiction defines the scope of that jurisdiction.” Id.
The exclusive remedy from a final felony conviction for a non-capital offense
is through a writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3(a). Sefiane asks this Court to compel the
2 trial court to perform an act that is not authorized by law. We deny the petition for a
writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on April 29, 2025 Opinion Delivered April 30, 2025 Do Not Publish
Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Samad Sefiane v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-samad-sefiane-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.