Opinion
NUMBER 13-14-00412-CR
07-22-2014
IN RE CHARLES WILLIAMS
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Relator, Charles Williams, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on July 21, 2014, seeking: (1) release on bail, and (2) correction of his judgment of conviction. Relator was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Relator did not appeal his conviction; however, he currently has a petition for writ of habeas corpus pending in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerning the analysis of forensic evidence. Ex parteCharles Williams, No. WR-77,382-03 (Tex. Crim. App.); see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 § 5 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). .
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show: (1) that he has no adequate remedy at law, and (2) that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of App. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). It is relator's burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ("Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks."). In addition to other requirements, relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to "competent evidence included in the appendix or record," and must also provide "a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record." See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record). The petition for writ of mandamus in this case fails to comply with these requirements.
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. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5; Padieu v. Ct. of App. of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding) ("It is well established that only the Court of Criminal Appeals possesses the authority to grant relief in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding where there is a final felony conviction."); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Ct. of App. of Tx., Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) ("Article 11.07 provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction. Jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas corpus relief on a final felony conviction rests exclusively with [the Court of Criminal Appeals]."). The Court of Criminal Appeals' exclusive jurisdiction under article 11.07 does not necessarily, however, divest the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to decide the merits of a mandamus petition when the relator has no article 11.07 application pending. See Padieu, 392 S.W.3d at 117-18.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the limited record presented, is of the opinion that relator has not established that we possess jurisdiction over this original proceeding. See Padieu, 392 S.W.3d at 117-18. Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
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."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).