The opinion
Opinion issued August 23, 2012.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-12-00552-CR
____________
DANNY RAY SMITH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 344th District Court
Chambers County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 14282
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Danny Ray Smith, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from an
order signed by the trial judge denying his “2nd MOTION FOR 344th DISTRICT
COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE.” We dismiss the appeal.
Appellant was convicted of felony theft and was found to be a habitual
offender.1 The judgment and sentence of confinement for twenty-five years were
entered on April 2, 2008. Appellant did not appeal from the judgment.
On May 21, 2012, appellant filed a “2nd MOTION FOR 344th DISTRICT
COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE,” requesting that the trial court take
judicial notice of the “Adjudicative Facts that Petitioner’s conviction is in violation
of State Legislative and Federal Constitutional Laws and is illegal.” The trial court
denied the motion on May 22. Appellant appeals the denial of the motion.
Article 11.07 provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony
conviction. See TEX. CODE. CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5 (West Supp. 2011)
(providing that “[a]fter conviction, the procedure outlined in this Act shall be
exclusive and any other proceeding shall be void and of no force and effect in
discharging the prisoner”); Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d
481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). “Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of
appeals.” In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2006, orig. proceeding) (internal citations omitted); see TEX. CODE. CRIM. PROC.
ANN. art. 11.07. Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over
matters related to post-conviction relief from a final felony conviction. TEX. CODE.
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2011), 31.03(e)(5) (West Supp.
2011).
2
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S. W.2d 241,
243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). To complain about an action or
inaction of the trial court in a post-conviction felony proceeding, an appellant “may
seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.” Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d
at 196–97; McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 717.
Here, appellant’s felony conviction was final on April 2, 2008, and appellant
is attempting to appeal from an order denying post-conviction relief. We have no
jurisdiction over such an appeal. See TEX. CODE. CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07;
Ater, 802 at 243; McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 717.
Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss
all pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3