in Re Samuel Roy Jackson

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 10, 2019·No. 01-19-00934-CR·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued December 10, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-19-00934-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 issuance of a writ of mandamus directing

the trial court to vacate his “void judgment [of] conviction.” 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, in the 183rd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Vanessa Velasquez presiding. In October 2004, a jury found relator guilty of the felony offense of aggravated

robbery with a deadly weapon and assessed his punishment at confinement for thirty-

five years. See Jackson v. State, No. 01-04-01137, 2005 WL 3072018 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 17, 2005, pet. withdrawn) (mem. op., not designated for

publication). Relator’s mandamus petition is a collateral attack on a final felony

conviction and, therefore, falls within the scope of a post-conviction writ of habeas

corpus under article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. Article 11.07 provides the exclusive means to challenge the

conviction. See id.; Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115,

117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Although “the courts of appeals have mandamus

jurisdiction in criminal matters, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has

jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings.” In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d

715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding); see also In re

Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig.

proceeding) (“Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals.”).

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 Keyes, Goodman, and Countiss.

Do not publish.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

in Re Samuel Roy Jackson, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

in Re Samuel Roy Jackson (in Re Samuel Roy Jackson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Briscoe
230 S.W.3d 196 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
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)