From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re McIntosh

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Dec 18, 2019
No. 10-19-00450-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 18, 2019)

Opinion

No. 10-19-00442-CR No. 10-19-00446-CR No. 10-19-00447-CR No. 10-19-00448-CR No. 10-19-00449-CR No. 10-19-00450-CR No. 10-19-00451-CR No. 10-19-00452-CR No. 10-19-00453-CR No. 10-19-00454-CR

12-18-2019

IN RE WILLIAM ARTHUR MCINTOSH


Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

William Arthur McIntosh, an inmate, requests that we declare his judgments of conviction void and grant writs of mandamus in ten separate final felony convictions from 1994. He argues the failure of the trial court to file an anti-bribery affidavit rendered the convictions "null and void."

Once a felony conviction becomes final, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to review post-conviction collateral attacks on those convictions. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).

Accordingly, because McIntosh complains about final felony convictions and only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction regarding his complaints, McIntosh's petitions for writ of mandamus are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill
Petitions dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed December 18, 2019
Do not publish
[OT06]


Summaries of

In re McIntosh

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Dec 18, 2019
No. 10-19-00450-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 18, 2019)
Case details for

In re McIntosh

Case Details

Full title:IN RE WILLIAM ARTHUR MCINTOSH

Court:STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

Date published: Dec 18, 2019

Citations

No. 10-19-00450-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 18, 2019)

Citing Cases

In re Davis

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim.…