Opinion
05-23-00255-CV
04-06-2023
IN RE WILLIAM SEDRIC AUTREY, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10-16130-Q
Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Breedlove
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN, JUSTICE
William Sedric Autrey was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to seventy-five years in prison. This Court affirmed relator's conviction. See Autrey v. State, No. 05-13-00709-CR, 2015 WL 4462202 (Tex. App.-Dallas July 21, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The Court issued its mandate on January 20, 2016.
In this original proceeding, relator seeks mandamus relief regarding an order issued by the 416th Judicial District Court in 2010 permitting police to attach a mobile tracking device to his vehicle. Relator contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress evidence gleaned from a traffic stop he alleges occurred because of information from the tracking device. Relator petitions to have the tracking order declared void, the evidence from the traffic stop suppressed, and to have his aggravated robbery conviction overturned to restore him to the status of awaiting trial.
This case addresses relator's request for mandamus relief against the 204th Judicial District Court. In the same mandamus petition, relator requests relief on the same grounds on separate convictions for engaging in organized criminal activity in the 296th Judicial District Court. We address relator's mandamus action against the 296th Judicial District Court separately in cause no. 05-23-00254-CV. Relator's petition also raises the issue of mandamus against the 416th Judicial District Court for issuing the tracking order. Because it appears that the tracking order was used only in the proceedings in the 204th and 296th Judicial District Courts, and because we conclude we have no jurisdiction over the issues relator raises, the Court declines to open a separate case regarding the 416th Judicial District Court. We note that in subsequent letters seeking to explain his mandamus filings, relator has stated that he intended to seek mandamus relief against the 204th and 296th Judicial District Courts.
Relator's petition, although couched as seeking mandamus relief, seeks to undermine his conviction and thus actually requests post-conviction habeas relief under article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, §1; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding); In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 356, 356-57 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Turcios, No. 05-20-00705-CV, 2020 WL 4745544, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Aug. 17, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op, not designated for publication). After a final felony conviction, the court of criminal appeals has exclusive authority to grant post-conviction habeas relief. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 5; Bd. of Pardons and Paroles ex rel. Keene v. The Eighth Court of Appeals, 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
Relator contends that because his conviction arose from the void tracking order, it is not final, and he should not be required to seek habeas relief under article 11.07. However, a conviction becomes final for purposes of applying article 11.07 when the appellate court issues its mandate. Ex parte Webb, 270 S.W.3d 108, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Because the mandate issued on relator's case in 2016, his conviction is final. Id.
We do not have jurisdiction to consider an original application for writ of habeas corpus arising from a criminal proceeding. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.05; Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(d); Ayers, 515 S.W.3d at 356-57; Turcios, 2020 WL 4745544, at *1. When a relator files a petition for writ of mandamus requesting only habeas relief that should be brought in an article 11.07 habeas application, the proper course is to dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction. Ayers, 515 S.W.3d at 356-57; Turcios, 2020 WL 4745544, at *2.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.