Opinion
No. 14-09-00182-CR
Memorandum Opinion filed March 10, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Original Proceeding. Writ of Mandamus.
Panel consists of Justices YATES, GUZMAN, and SULLIVAN.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 24, 2009, relator, Michael E. Smith, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann `22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. In his petition, relator asserts his conviction is unconstitutional because the respondent, the Honorable Mary Lou Keel, presiding judge of the 232nd District Court of Harris County, abused her discretion by denying his motion for new trial on material evidence, violating Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, (1963), denying his motion for a hearing on newly discovered evidence, not trying him in accordance with Texas law, and subjecting him to double jeopardy. Relator further complains he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Relator requests an evidentiary hearing for the resolution of controverted facts. Relator seeks post-conviction habeas relief. Although courts of appeals have jurisdiction in criminal matters, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to final post-conviction felony proceedings. Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). This includes assertions of void convictions. See In re Walid, No. 08-04-00345-CR, 2004 WL 3017293, at *1 (Tex.App.-El Paso Dec. 16, 2004, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication) (holding court of appeals did not have authority to compel trial court to set aside judgment of conviction, which relator asserted was void). We do not have jurisdiction over relator's requested relief. Relator has also named the Harris County District Attorney's Office, the State's Attorney for the 232nd District Court, the Harris County Adult Probation Department, the Adult Probation Officer for the 232nd District Court, and the drug screening services used by the 232nd District Court as respondents to this original proceeding. A court of appeals has the authority to issue writs of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals' district and all writs necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(b). None of the additional named respondents is a district or county court judge and relator has not shown that the exercise of our mandamus authority against these respondents is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Therefore, we have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against these respondents. Accordingly, relator's petition is ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.