NUMBER 13-10-085-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

EX PARTE RICHARD MARTINEZ

 

On appeal from the 94th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Vela, and Perkes 

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela

Applicant, Richard Martinez, was indicted for attempted sexual assault. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 15.01(a) (West 2003), § 22.011(a) (West Supp. 2010). On January 

17, 2008, he pleaded guilty to the offense, the trial court found him guilty of the offense, 

and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment, but suspended the sentence and placed 

him on community supervision for six years. Thereafter, pursuant to the State’s motion, 
2

the trial court revoked Martinez’ community supervision. However, while on community 

supervision, Martinez filed an application for writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07 of 

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court 

denied relief. In three issues, Martinez argues: (1) he is actually innocent of the 

offense; (2) his plea was involuntary; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of 

counsel. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

I. JURISDICTION

On December 11, 2009, Martinez filed an “APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION UNDER 

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07” (the Application) with the clerk of 

the convicting court in the above-referenced case. On January 14, 2010, the trial court 

held a hearing on the Application and denied relief. This Court has received and filed the 

following items: (1) the clerk’s record, which includes a copy of the Application as well as 

a copy of the order denying relief; (2) the reporter’s records of the plea hearing, the 

hearing on the motion for new trial, and the hearing on the Application; and (3) the 

appellate briefs.

Our court of criminal appeals has stated that “[a] writ application under article 

11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure may only be used to challenge a final 

conviction.” Ex parte Hiracheta, 307 S.W.3d 323, 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Ex 

parte Renier, 734 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (dismissing an application 

regarding community supervision brought under art. 11.07 for failing to comply with 

jurisdictional requisites to granting relief, that is, “a final felony conviction”)).
3

We need not decide whether Martinez’s conviction is final because intermediate 

appellate courts do not have jurisdiction over writs of habeas corpus filed under Article 

11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 

11.07, § 3(a) (West 2010) (stating that “the writ [filed under Article 11.07] must be made 

returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas at Austin, Texas.”); § 3(c) (stating “it 

shall be the duty of the convicting court to decide whether there are controverted, 

previously unresolved facts material to the legality of the applicant’s confinement. . . . If 

the convicting court decides that there are no such issues, the clerk shall immediately 

transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of the application, . . . .”); see also Ex 

parte Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d 260, 261 (Tex. App.–Waco 2006, orig. proceeding).

II. CONCLUSION

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

ROSE VELA

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

28th day of April, 2011.