NO. 12-13-00256-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ALBERT RANDOLPH, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

On August 15, 2013, Appellant Albert Randolph filed a “Notice of Appeal Pursuant to 

Article 11.07 of Tex. C.C.P. Writ of Habeas Corpus.” By this notice, he informed the trial court 

that he desired to appeal his 2008 conviction for sexual assault of a child, which is a felony. He 

also requested in his notice that the trial court direct the Smith County District Attorney’s Office 

to prepare a copy of the discovery in the case for inspection, and provide a copy to Appellant at 

no charge. The trial court signed an order dismissing Appellant’s postjudgment request for 

discovery, but directed that his “Notice of Appeal Pursuant to Article 11.07 of Tex. C.C.P. Writ 

of Habeas Corpus” be forwarded to the clerk of this court.

Our records reflect that Appellant filed a notice of appeal in this court following his 2008 

conviction. The appeal was transferred to the Texarkana court of appeals pursuant to an April 1, 

2008 miscellaneous docket control order of the Supreme Court of Texas. The Texarkana court 

affirmed Appellant’s conviction. See Randolph v. State, No. 06-08-00058-CR, 2008 WL 

5058597, at *3 (Tex. App.–Texarkana Dec. 2, 2008, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication). Appellant now seeks postconviction relief under Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure Article 11.07. 

The court of criminal appeals has exclusive authority to grant postconviction relief from a 

final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. 
2

App. 1991). The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedure for filing a 

postconviction habeas application to seek relief from a final felony conviction in a Texas court. 

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2012). The intermediate courts of 

appeals have no role in this procedure. See id. Therefore, we are without jurisdiction of this 

appeal.

On August 16, 2013, this court notified Appellant, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 37.2, that the information received in this appeal does not contain a final judgment or 

other appealable order. Appellant was further informed that the appeal would be dismissed if the 

information received in the appeal was not amended on or before September 16, 2013, to show 

the jurisdiction of this court. Appellant has neither responded to this court’s August 16, 2013 

notice nor shown the jurisdiction of this court.

Because Appellant has not shown the jurisdiction of this court, the appeal is dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3.

Opinion delivered September 18, 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013

NO. 12-13-00256-CR

ALBERT RANDOLPH,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-2075-07)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the 

appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision 

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.