DISMISSED and Opinion Filed April 6, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00255-CV IN RE WILLIAM SEDRIC AUTREY, Relator Original Proceeding from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10-16130-Q MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Goldstein William Sedric Autrey was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to seventy-five years in prison. This Court affirmed rela tor’s conviction. See Autrey v. State , No. 05-13-00709-CR, 2015 WL 4462202 (T ex. App.—Dallas July 21, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publi cation). The Court issued its mandate on January 20, 2016. In this original proceeding, relator seeks mandamus relief regarding an order issued by the 416th Judicial District Court in 2010 permitting police to attach a mobile tracking device to his vehicle. Rela tor contends the tria l court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppre ss evidence gleaned fro m a traffic stop he alleges occurred because of information fr om the tracking device. Relator petitions–2– to have the tracking order declared void, the evidence from the traffic stop suppressed, and to have his aggravated r obbery conviction overturned to restore him to the status of awaiting trial. 1 Relator’s petition, although couched as seeking mandamus relief, seeks to undermine his conviction and thus actually requests post-conviction habeas relief under article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11.07, §1; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding); In re Ayers , 515 S.W.3d 356, 356–57 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Turcios , No. 05-20-00705-CV, 2020 WL 4745544, at *1 (Tex . App.—Dallas Aug. 17, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op, not designated for publication). After a final felony conviction, the court of criminal appeal s has exclusive authority to grant postconviction habeas relief. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. art. 11.07, § 5; Bd. of Pardons and Paroles ex rel. Keene v. The Eighth Court of Appeals , 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

1 This case addresses relator’s request for mandamus relief against the 204th Judicial District Court. In the same mandamus petition, relator requests relief on the same grounds on separate convictions for engaging in organized criminal activity in the 296th Ju dicial District Court. We address relator’s mandamus action against the 296th Judicial District Court sep arately in cause no. 05-23-00254-CV. Relator’s petition also raises the issue of mandamus against the 416th Judi cial District Court for issuing the tracking order. Because it appears that the tracking order was used onl y in the proceedings in the 204th and 296th Judicial District Courts, and because we conclude we have no jurisdiction over the issues relator raises, the Court declines to open a separate case regarding the 416th Judi cial District Court. We note that in subsequent letters seeking to explain his mandamus filings, relator has stated that he intended to seek mandamus relief against the 204th and 296th Judicial District Courts.–3– Relator contends that because his conviction arose from the void tracking order, it is not final, and he should not be required to seek habeas relief under article 11.07. However, a conviction becomes final for purposes of applying article 11.07 when the appellate cour t issues its mandate. Ex parte Webb , 270 S.W.3d 108, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Because the mandate issued on relator’s case in 2016, his conviction is final. Id

. We do not have jurisdiction to consider an original application for writ of habeas corpus arising fro m a criminal proceeding. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11.05; T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.221(d); A yers , 515 S.W.3d at 356–57;
Turcios , 2020 WL 4745544, at *1. When a re lator files a petition for writ of mandamus requesting only hab eas relief that should be brought in an article 11.07 habeas application, the proper course is to dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction. A yers , 515 S.W.3d at 356–57; Turcios , 2020 WL 4745544, at *2. Accordingly, we dismiss the petiti on for want of jurisdiction.

230255F.P05 /Bonnie Lee Goldstein / BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE