### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00011- CV

In re Re ginald A. Noble

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Reg inald A. Noble, an inmate in the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice, has filed
a document entitled Amende d Motion for Leave to File Affidavit
. Noble previously filed a document entitled Motion for Leave to File the Original Appli cation for W rit of Mandamus and Prohibition that we trea

ted as a petition for writ of mandamus and subsequen t ly denied. See In re Noble , 2012 WL 6699016, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec
. 21, orig
. proce eding ). Having alre ady disposed of that petition, we construe the instant motion, rec eived afte r the denial of the previous petition, as
a petition initiating another orig inal appellate proce eding seeking extraordinary relief
. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. There is simply inadequa te info rm at i o n supplied in the motion to even beg in to addre ss the leg al merits. First, Noble does not name a Respondent, and it is unclea r from the body of the document ag ainst whom he seeks mandamus relief
. Second, it is dif

fi cu l t t o discern the prec ise nature of Noble’ s complaint. Consequently , it is unclear what remedy or re lief he se eks. Noble mentions the denial of an 11.07 application for writ of habea s corpus that he filed in the district court of Dallas County
. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp.2012) (providing for p o s t -conviction relief from final felony conviction). Article 11.07 vests

complete jurisdiction over post-conviction relief from final felony convictions in the Tex as C ourt of Criminal Appeal s . S

ee id. ; Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist. , 910 S.W .2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In r e W a t son , 253 S.W .3d 319, 320 (Tex. App.—Amar illo 2008, orig
. proce eding ). The courts of appea ls have no role in criminal law matters perta ining to p roce eding s under article 11.07 and have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in connec tion with such proce eding s. See In re B r i s co e , 2 0 S.W .3d 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2006, orig
. proce eding ); In re McAfe e , 53 S.W
. 3 d 7 1 5 , 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig
. proce eding ); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 5 (West Supp. 2012). To the extent that Noble seeks manda m u s relief conce rning an 11.07 application for

writ of habe as cor

pus, we ha

ve no jurisdiction to gr ant Noble a ny relief
. Noble also ref

ers to a clemenc y application submitt ed to the Texas Boa rd of Pardons and Paroles. This Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over the Texas Boa rd of Pardons and Paroles. B y

statute, this Court has the authority to issue a writ of manda mus ag ainst “a judg e of a district or county

court in the court of appeals di strict” and other wr its as nece ssary to enforc e our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004). The parole board is not a party ag ainst whom we may iss ue a writ of mandamus. Nor has Noble demonstrated that the exercise of our writ power is ne cessa ry to enforc e our jurisdiction. To the e x tent that Noble seeks mandamus relief ag ainst the Texas B oard of Pardons and Paroles, we have no jurisdiction to g rant Noble any

relief
. For the above rea sons, we dismiss Noble’s petition for wa nt of jurisdiction.

2__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Goodwin and F ield Filed: January

18, 2013

3