Opinion
04-22-00414-CR
08-24-2022
EX PARTE Alphonso BOUTIRE
DO NOT PUBLISH
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CR7766-W1 Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
PER CURIAM
Appellant, proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal the dismissal of his post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to article 11.07. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3(a). Under the exclusive procedure outlined in article 11.07, only the convicting trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals have jurisdiction to review the merits of a post-conviction habeas petition; there is no role for the intermediate courts of appeals in the statutory scheme. Id. art. 11.07, § 5 (providing "[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"). Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to grant post-conviction release from confinement for persons with a felony conviction. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3; Hoang v. State, 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); In re Stone, 26 S.W.3d 568,
569 (Tex. App.-Waco 2000, orig. proceeding). The intermediate courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding); see also In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding); Ex parte Ngo, No. 02-16-00425-CR, 2016 WL 7405836, at *1 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth Dec. 22, 2016) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction).
Accordingly, on July 26, 2022, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant's response did not establish that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are denied as moot.
Appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his response to our show cause order. However, Appellant timely filed a response to our show cause order and his motion for extension of time is moot. Appellant also filed a motion asking this court appoint him counsel in this proceeding. A post-conviction habeas corpus applicant is not constitutionally entitled to the appointment of counsel, although a trial court may appoint counsel if it concludes the interests of justice require representation. Ex parte Graves, 70 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); see also In re Gonzalez, No. 04-06-00186-CV, 2006 WL 1004863, at *1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Apr. 19, 2006, original proceeding) (mem. op.). "Additionally, only the judges of county courts, statutory county courts, and district courts trying criminal cases in the county are authorized to appoint counsel for indigent defendants in the county." Gonzalez, 2006 WL 1004863, at *1 (citing Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(a), (b)(1)).