In 1993, Relator Kevin Revels was convicted of aggravated assault on a correctional officer with a deadly weapon. This court affirmed his conviction. See generally No. 12-93-00325-CR (Tex. App.-Tyler June 29, 1995, pet. ref'd) (per curiam) (not designated for publication). He complains in this original mandamus proceeding that his case was handled by the special prosecutor whose name appears on the judgment, and argues that a special prosecutor cannot be used to convict a prisoner unless the special prosecutor is assisted by the elected state prosecutor. Thus, he contends, the judgment of conviction is void. Accordingly, he requests that the mandate in this cause be dismissed and that the trial court be directed to dismiss the case, secure the return of all related records from any and all agencies to which the records have been sent, and destroy the records. We dismiss the petition.
The court of criminal appeals has exclusive authority to grant postconviction relief from a final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Relator informs us that he has already raised this issue by filing several postconviction applications for writ of habeas corpus, but has failed to obtain relief. Nevertheless, this court does not have jurisdiction to address his complaint. See id.
Because the court of criminal appeals has exclusive authority to grant postconviction relief from a final felony conviction, we are without jurisdiction to consider Relator's petition for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
JAMES T. WORTHEN
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
KEVIN REVELS, Relator
HON. PAM FLETCHER, Respondent
ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by KEVIN REVELS, who is the defendant in Cause No. 11-0104, pending on the docket of the 349th Judicial District Court of Houston County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on December 27, 2011, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that writ of mandamus should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby DISMISSED.
James T. Worthen, Justice.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., andHoyle, J.