in Re Samuel Roy Jackson

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 8, 2016
Docket01-16-00578-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Samuel Roy Jackson (in Re Samuel Roy Jackson) 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.

Bluebook
in Re Samuel Roy Jackson, (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Opinion issued September 8, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-16-00578-CR ——————————— IN RE SAMUEL ROY JACKSON, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Samuel Roy Jackson, incarcerated and proceeding pro se, has filed a

petition for a writ of mandamus, “seeking relief from [a] void court order” rendered

in the underlying proceeding.1 We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Samuel Roy Jackson, cause number 913043, pending in the 183rd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Vanessa Velasquez presiding. Relator seeks relief from a final felony conviction. See Jackson v. State, No.

01–04–01137–CR, 2005 WL 3072018, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov.

17, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming conviction).

Because his petition involves a final post-conviction felony proceeding, article 11.07

of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure governs and provides the exclusive means

to challenge the conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon

2015); Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2013); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for

Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Only the Texas Court

of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings.

See In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196–97 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006,

orig. proceeding); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717–18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). “Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of

appeals.” In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d at 196. Accordingly, we do not have

jurisdiction over relator’s mandamus petition.

We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Brown.

Do not publish.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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Briscoe
230 S.W.3d 196 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Board of Pardons & Paroles Ex Rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District
910 S.W.2d 481 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1995)
In Re McAfee
53 S.W.3d 715 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Padieu, Philippe, Relator v. Court of Appeals of Texas, 5th District
392 S.W.3d 115 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Samuel Roy Jackson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-samuel-roy-jackson-texapp-2016.