Opinion
NUMBER 13-18-00245-CR
05-08-2018
IN RE ERNESTO BENAVIDES JR.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Relator Ernesto Benavides Jr., proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause through which he requests that we issue a "mandate ordering reversal and acquittal of cause no. 2010-CR-0108-A along with compensation in accordance with Texas Civil Remedies Code 103.001." See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 103.001 (West, Westlaw 2017 through 1st C.S.) (governing the award of compensation to persons wrongfully imprisoned). According to the documents attached to this petition, relator has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus which is pending in cause number WR-82,033-03 in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
The petition for writ of mandamus pending here is a collateral attack on a final conviction and, therefore, falls within the scope of a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final, post-conviction felony proceedings. See id.; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding); In re Harrison, 187 S.W.3d 199, 200 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding); see also Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding) (stating that absent a pending application for habeas corpus filed under Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellate courts have the jurisdiction to rule on a mandamus petition requesting access to materials that could be used in a future habeas application).
An intermediate appellate court has no jurisdiction to rule on matters pertaining to a pending Article 11.07 application. See Padieu, 392 S.W.3d at 117-18. Accordingly, we dismiss this original proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
DORI CONTRERAS
JUSTICE Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 8th day of May, 2018.