On February 10, 2006, Relator, Herbert Lee Briscoe, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also TEX.R.APP.P. 52.1. The petition arises from relator's application for writ of habeas corpus filed in the trial court in which his conviction was obtained. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2005). Relator asks this court to grant "this application" and "proper access in filing a subsequent application in this case."

We do not have jurisdiction over relator's request. Courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon 2005); Board of Pardons and Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals. To complain about any action, or inaction, of the convicting court, the applicant may seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 5. We have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings under TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07. See In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is ordered dismissed.

Summaries of

In re Briscoe

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston

Feb 15, 2006

230 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. App. 2006)

stating that intermediate appellate courts have no jurisdiction over "post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases" under article 11.07

Summary of this case from In re Keller

stating that intermediate appellate courts have no jurisdiction over "post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases" under article 11.07

Summary of this case from Weems v. State

stating that intermediate appellate courts have no jurisdiction over "post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases" under article 11.07

Summary of this case from Aekins v. State

stating that intermediate appellate courts have no jurisdiction over "post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases" under article 11.07

Summary of this case from Smith v. State

stating that courts of appeal have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases

Summary of this case from Flaming v. State

stating that intermediate appellate courts have no jurisdiction over "post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases" under article 11.07

Summary of this case from Gonzales v. State

stating that because court of appeals lacked jurisdiction, petition seeking mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals may be filed to complain about convicting court's inaction in proceedings after final felony conviction

Summary of this case from In re Grable

stating that courts of appeal have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases

Summary of this case from In re Gutierrez

stating that courts of appeal have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases

Summary of this case from In re Adeleke

stating that courts of appeal have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases

Summary of this case from In re Friemel

stating that courts of appeal have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases

Summary of this case from In re Watson

In re Briscoe

Summary

Opinion

OPINION

In re Briscoe

In re Briscoe

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

In re Briscoe

Summary

Opinion

OPINION

In re Briscoe

In re Briscoe

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations