NO. 12-19-00022-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:

WILLIE L. RAY, 

RELATOR

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Relator, Willie Ray, filed this pro se original proceeding in which he challenges 

Respondent’s failure to ensure that he had a fair and impartial jury trial when a juror fell asleep 

during trial.1 He contends that his trial counsel alerted Respondent to the fact that one of the 

jurors was sleeping during trial, particularly while evidence was being presented and the jury 

charge was being read. Relator complains that Respondent failed to admonish the juror.

In September 2003, a jury convicted Relator of aggravated assault and assessed his 

punishment at forty-five years in prison. See Ray v. State, No. 12-03-00337-CR, 2004 WL 

1795376 (Tex. App.—Tyler Aug. 11, 2004, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication). This Court affirmed the conviction.2 See id. In this original proceeding, Relator 

now challenges his conviction by claiming that his constitutional rights were violated by a 

sleeping juror and Respondent’s failure to address the matter. However, the sole method for a 

collateral attack on a felony conviction is through an application for a writ of habeas corpus. In 

re Harrison, 187 S.W.3d 199, 200 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see Ater v. 

 

1 Respondent is the Honorable Kerry L. Russell, Judge of the 7th District Court in Smith County, Texas. 

The State of Texas is the Real Party in Interest.

2 The court of criminal appeals granted Relator an opportunity to file an out of time petition for 

discretionary review. See Ex parte Ray, No. AP-75,328, 2006 WL 234901 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 1, 2006). The 

petition was subsequently refused. See Ex parte Ray, PD-0342-06 (Tex. Crim. App. June 1, 2006). Relator also 

filed other unsuccessful proceedings with the court of criminal appeals. See Ex parte Ray, No. WR-61,390-05, 

2006 WL 234901 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 12, 2018); see also Ex parte Ray, No. WR-61,390-04, (Tex. Crim. App. 

Sept. 17, 2015). 
2

Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art 11.07 (West 2005). Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus 

is an improper collateral attack on his criminal conviction. See In re Tutson, No. 07-17-00405-

CV, 2017 WL 5185124 at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Nov. 7, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) 

(“a felony conviction is not subject to a collateral attack by means of a writ of mandamus”); see 

also Harrison, 187 S.W.3d at 200. We, therefore, dismiss Relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered January 23, 2019.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
3

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JANUARY 23, 2019

NO. 12-19-00022-CR

WILLIE L. RAY,

Relator

V.

HON. KERRY L. RUSSELL,

Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by 

Willie L. Ray; who is the relator in Cause No. 007-0396-03-A. Said petition for writ of 

mandamus having been filed herein on January 16, 2019, and the same having been duly 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that it lacks jurisdiction, it is therefore 

CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, 

and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

By per curiam opinion.

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