In re Sorrow

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, HoustonMay 17, 2011
No. 14-11-00360-CR (Tex. App. May. 17, 2011)

No. 14-11-00360-CR

Opinion filed May 17, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Appealed from the 263rd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 874978. Original Proceeding, Writ of Mandamus.

Panel consists of Justices ANDERSON, BROWN, and CHRISTOPHER.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


On April 28, 2011, relator 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. In the petition, relator seeks an order directing respondent, the Honorable Jim Wallace, presiding judge of the 263rd District Court of Harris County, to (1) grant a motion for an incompetency hearing; (2) enforce an order for production of mental health care records; (3) hold the State's prosecuting attorney in contempt for violating production order; (4) grant a motion for discovery of health care records; and (5) reverse his judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial. The courts of appeals have concurrent mandamus jurisdiction with the Court of Criminal Appeals in some post-conviction proceedings. Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). Relator is seeking post-conviction relief on the grounds he was incompetent to stand trial. Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Board of Pardons Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding that article 11.07 provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction). Because we do not have jurisdiction, the petition for writ of mandamus is ordered denied.