explaining that “[j]urisdiction to grant post[-]conviction habeas corpus relief on a final felony conviction rests exclusively with” CCA
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “[j]urisdiction to grant post[-]conviction habeas corpus relief on a final felony conviction rests exclusively with” CCA
- observing CCA “alone among the courts of Texas has authority to release from confinement persons who have been finally convicted of felonies in this State”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-22-00298-CR
Ex parte Travis Lavel Ghant
FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
NO. 53,391-C, THE HONORABLE PAUL L. LEPAK, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Travis Lavel Ghant, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, seeks to appeal the trial court’s “judgment” with respect to his post-conviction
application for writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure. 1 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07.
Article 11.07 vests complete jurisdiction over post-conviction relief from final
felony convictions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA). See id. art. 11.07, §§ 3(a), 5;
Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481,
483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (explaining that “[j]urisdiction to grant post[-]conviction habeas
corpus relief on a final felony conviction rests exclusively with” CCA); Hoang v. State,
1 Pursuant to article 11.07, section 3, the trial court did not dispose of Ghant’s
application on its merits but transmitted it to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which
dismissed the application without written order. See Ex parte Taylor, No. 03-16-00461-CR,
2016 WL 6407301, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 28, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated
for publication) (“While a post-conviction application for writ of habeas relief under article
11.07 must be filed in the court of original conviction, that court does not decide the merits of the
application, but simply makes any necessary findings of fact and forwards the record to the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for a final ruling.”).
872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (observing CCA “alone among the courts of Texas
has authority to release from confinement persons who have been finally convicted of felonies in
this State”).
Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction to grant Ghant the relief he seeks. See
In re Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 819, 822 n.4 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.) (“Courts of appeals
have no jurisdiction over criminal-law matters pertaining to proceedings under article 11.07.”).
His appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
__________________________________________
Edward Smith, Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: September 21, 2022
Do Not Publish
2