Opinion
04-24-00051-CR
06-12-2024
EX PARTE Bryant KENDRICK
DO NOT PUBLISH
From the 454th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas Trial Court No. 18-07-12941-CR Honorable Daniel J. Kindred, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
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 March 4, 2024, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not file a response to our show cause order. He did, however, file an appellant's brief. We liberally construe appellant's brief as a response to our show cause order. Nevertheless, appellant's brief does 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.
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION