In Re Sammy Saenz v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 28, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00142-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00142-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE SAMMY SAENZ

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice West1

By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Sammy Saenz seeks to compel

the trial court to delete a deadly weapon finding in his judgment of conviction because it

was not alleged in the indictment. Specifically, relator contends that the indictment stated

that relator used a stun gun as a deadly weapon while committing aggravated assault,

family violence, yet relator’s judgment of conviction states that relator used “a firearm” in

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.1 (“The court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.”); id. R. 47.4 (explaining the differences between opinions and memorandum opinions). the commission of the offense. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(b)(1). We dismiss the

petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

Relator's petition for writ of mandamus reflects that he seeks relief from a final

felony conviction. However, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to

grant relief in post-conviction felony proceedings. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.

11.07; Padieu v. Ct. of Apps. of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 118 (Tex. Crim. App.

2013) (orig. proceeding); Ater v. Eighth Ct. of Apps., 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991) (orig. proceeding); In re Williams, 584 S.W.3d 500, 500 (Tex. App.—Tyler

2018, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196–97 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Harrison, 187 S.W.3d 199,

200 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see also In re Webb, No. 01-21-

00246-CR, 2021 WL 3160183, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 27, 2021, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op, not designated for publication) (per curiam) (“The exclusive

jurisdiction of the court of criminal appeals to grant post-conviction relief extends to

attempts to delete deadly weapon findings.”).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this original

proceeding. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of

jurisdiction.

JON WEST Justice

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the 28th day of March, 2025.