Opinion
No. 06-12-00036-CR
03-09-2012
In re: SAMMY WOODS
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Sammy Woods has filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting this Court order a district judge to rule on his application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2011). Woods alleges that he has filed an original application for writ of habeas corpus on which the trial court has not timely ruled or forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Woods' petition seeks relief against "Judge Fowler" of the "120th District Court, Clarksville, TX" in "Red River County." We take judicial notice that Clarksville is located in Red River County. We also take judicial notice that Red River County has two district judges: the Honorable Eric Clifford, presiding judge of the 6th District, and the Honorable Bobby Lockhart, presiding judge of the 102nd District. We take judicial notice that the County Judge of Upshur County is Judge Dean Fowler, II, and that the 120th District is located in El Paso County. While we are unable to determine, with absolute certainty, against which judge relief is sought, it is not necessary to make such a determination given that we lack jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.
Woods also requests that we make a finding that the trial court violated the law, that "relator brought this litigation in good faith, and has substantially [prevailed]."
We further note that Woods has not attached a copy of the original application for writ of habeas corpus or alleged a date when said application was filed. Although the petition alleges it contains Exhibits "'A though 'I,'" the only attachments consist of Woods' declaration that the facts alleged are true and correct, a declaration of inability to pay costs, and a statement of his inmate trust account. Woods' petition is not accompanied by a certified or sworn copy of the motion that is the subject of his complaint, as is required by Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). It is the relator's burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7. Even if we had jurisdiction, the record would still be inadequate to grant mandamus relief.
--------
The procedure set forth in Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is the exclusive post-conviction judicial remedy available when the conviction is final and the applicant is confined by virtue of his felony conviction. See Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281, 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (orig. proceeding); McBride v. State, 114 S.W.3d 556, 557 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07. Article 11.07 vests complete jurisdiction over post-conviction relief from final felony convictions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 1991); cf. Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (per curiam); In re Watson, 253 S.W.3d 319, 320 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
We have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in connection with an application for writ of habeas corpus under TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07. In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (no authority to grant mandamus relief when trial court failed to rule on application for writ of habeas corpus); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (same). Woods must seek relief in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Watson, 253 S.W.3d at 320.
For the reasons stated, we dismiss Woods' petition for want of jurisdiction.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Do Not Publish