Opinion issued November 17, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00741-CR

NO. 01-15-00742-CR

NO. 01-15-00743-CR

NO. 01-15-00744-CR

NO. 01-15-00745-CR

NO. 01-15-00746-CR

NO. 01-15-00747-CR

NO. 01-15-00748-CR

NO. 01-15-00749-CR

NO. 01-15-00750-CR

NO. 01-15-00751-CR

———————————

IN RE WILLIAM ANDREW ALLEN, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, William Andrew Allen, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a 

writ of mandamus relating to his aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, and 

indecency with a child convictions.1 

Relator seeks mandamus relief, arguing that (1) the trial court did not have 

jurisdiction because when he was indicted on September 8, 2008, the Waller 

County trial court had already lost jurisdiction to Fayette County on August 30, 

2008; (2) he received ineffective assistance at trial because his counsel did not 

advise him that the trial court had lost jurisdiction; (3) he received ineffective 

assistance on appeal when his counsel stopped representation before his direct 

appeal was over; and (4) he was denied due process because the State failed to 

disclose evidence favorable to his defense. 

On direct appeal, this Court affirmed relator’s felony convictions for 

aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, and indecency with a child, and the Court 

of Criminal Appeals refused his petition for review. See Allen v. State, No. 01–10–

00652–CR, 01-10-00653-CR, 01-10-00654-CR, 01-10-00655-CR, 01-10-00656-

CR, 01-10-00657-CR, 01-10-00658-CR, 01-10-00659-CR, 01-10-00660-CR, 01-

10-00661-CR, 01-10-00662-CR, 2012 WL 2106550 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] June 7, 2012, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). After 

 

1

The underlying case is Allen v. State, cause numbers 12976 through 12986, in the 

155th District Court of Waller County, Texas, the Hon. Dan R. Beck presiding.
3

our mandate issued on February 22, 2013, the trial court’s judgment of conviction 

became final.

Because relator’s petition involves a final post-conviction felony proceeding, 

it is governed by Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015); see also id. art. 11.07 § 5 (stating 

that, “[a]fter conviction the procedure outlined in this Act shall be exclusive and 

any other proceeding shall be void and of no force and effect in discharging the 

prisoner”). “Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals. To complain 

about any action, or inaction, of the convicting court, the applicant may seek 

mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.” In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 

196, 196–97 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); see Bd. of 

Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 

S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). 

Thus, we lack jurisdiction to issue the requested writ of mandamus because 

relator’s petition is governed by article 11.07. Within his mandamus petition, 

relator includes a writ of habeas corpus. To the extent that relator attempts to file 

the writ of habeas corpus in this Court, we do not have jurisdiction over relator’s 

article 11.07 request for habeas relief. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 

§ 3(a) (West 2015) (“After final conviction in any felony case, the writ must be 

made returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas at Austin, Texas.”); Bd. 
4

of Pardons & Paroles, 910 S.W.2d at 483 (“Jurisdiction to grant post conviction 

habeas corpus relief on a final felony conviction rests exclusively with [the Court 

of Criminal Appeals].”). Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We likewise 

dismiss his writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction. 

Sherry Radack

Chief Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).