Opinion
No. 09-07-040 CV
Opinion Delivered February 1, 2007.
Original Proceeding.
Before GAULTNEY, KREGER and HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Charles M. Farmer seeks mandamus relief to compel the judge who presided over his criminal trial to conduct a hearing to determine the accuracy of a reporter's record filed in his appeal. We affirmed his conviction on appeal and issued our mandate. See Farmer v. State, No. 09-01-371 CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 1348 (Tex.App.-Beaumont Feb. 12, 2003, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). In this mandamus petition, Farmer seeks to obtain a hearing on the accuracy of the record, but the appeal is final regardless of the defects in the appellate record. Ultimately, Farmer's complaint must be that he was deprived of a meaningful appeal because the court reporter omitted testimony from the reporter's record. Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon 2005); Bd. of Pardons Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). Because the law provides a vehicle through which Farmer can raise his complaint about the deficiency in the reporter's record, Farmer is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. In re Harrison, 187 S.W.3d 199, 200 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding). For cases where the conviction is final, as here, the appropriate vehicle to develop the evidentiary record in support of his claims lies in a habeas corpus proceeding.
The petition for writ of mandamus, filed January 19, 2007, is DENIED.