Opinion

in Re Alvester Charles Williams

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Filed
Jul 2, 2013
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 42.1%

The opinion

Opinion issued July 2, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-13-00370-CR

———————————

IN RE ALVESTER CHARLES WILLIAMS, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Alvester Charles Williams, has filed a petition for writ of

mandamus, complaining that the trial court has not enforced its November 17,

2010 order relating to his post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. 1

1

Relator provides information indicating that this original proceeding arises out of

cause number 1172394A, styled Williams v. State, pending in the 262nd District

Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Denise Bradley presiding.

This Court, an intermediate appellate court, has no jurisdiction over post-

conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases.2 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 11.05, art. 11.07, § 3(a), (b) (Vernon 2005 & Vernon Supp. 2012); Perry

v. State, 01-12-01051-CR, 2012 WL 6213718, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] Dec. 13, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication)

(“Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals.”); In re McAfee, 53

S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (noting

that only Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction

felony proceedings).

To complain about the action or inaction of the trial court in a post-

conviction felony proceeding, relator must seek mandamus relief from the court of

criminal appeals. Perry, 2012 WL 6213718, at *1; In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at

718. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief in matters related to

a post-conviction writ application. See In re Livings, No. 01-12-00860-CR, 2012

WL 4465520, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 27, 2012, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication) (concluding that

intermediate appellate court had no jurisdiction in mandamus complaining that trial

2

Relator was convicted of the offense of felon in possession of a firearm for which

he was sentenced to 28 years in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04(a)(1)

(Vernon 2011). We affirmed relator’s conviction in Williams v. State, 313 S.W.3d

393 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d).

2

court had failed to rule on motions filed in aid of post-conviction writ of habeas

corpus); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 717–18.

Conclusion

We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Brown, and Huddle.

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

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.