Opinion

Charles Ray Edwards v. State

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Filed
Oct 5, 2011
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 42.2%

The opinion

Opinion issued October 5, 2011

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-09-00957-CR

____________

charles ray edwards ,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 209th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 328965

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In 1981, appellant Charles Ray Edwards

was convicted of aggravated robbery, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal.

See

Charles Ray Edwards v. State , No. 01-81-0497-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] July 1, 1982, no pet.) (not designated for publication). In 2008, on the trial of a subsequent

offense, the 1981 conviction was used to enhance appellant’s punishment. On October 14, 2009, appellant, proceeding

pro se, filed a second notice of appeal challenging the 1981 conviction.

This court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second appeal from

appellant’s final conviction. The

exclusive post-conviction remedy in final felony convictions in Texas courts is

through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure

article 11.07. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 5 (West Supp. 2010)

(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”); Ater v.

Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In addition, to the degree appellant

asserts in his notice of appeal that he is seeking habeas relief, we lack

jurisdiction to address his issues. Jurisdiction

to grant post-conviction habeas corpus relief in felony cases rests exclusively

with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. Code

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3; Board

of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District ,

910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).

Accordingly, because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we dismiss. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 42.3(a),

43.2(f). All pending motions are

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp,

and Brown.

Do not publish. Tex.

R. App. P. 47.2(b).

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.