Opinion issued October 30, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 1 4 - 00 7 34 - C V

——————————— IN RE COMMITMENT OF R ICHAR D DARREN G O ODWIN
Original Proceeding on Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Applicant , Richard Darren Goodwin, filed this pro se application for writ of habeas corpus , pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, with a few related motions in support of his application , on September 2, 2014
. Although styled as a civil commitment habeas ap p lication , applicant used the standard form for a federal habeas petition
u nder § 2254 to be filed in a federal district court
. Applicant actually claims to seek federal ha

beas relief from his February 29, 2012 third

- degree felony conviction , in Montgomery County , for violation of the terms of his 2005 sexually2

violent predator (“SVP”) civil commitment order, for which he received a prison sentence of twenty years
. 1 However , w e lack jurisdiction to consider § 2254 applications because such applicat ion s seeking federal habeas relief by state prisoner s can only be filed in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (stating that “[t]he [U.S.] Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus [o]n behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground t hat he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”) ;
see , e.g. , Malchi v. Thaler , 211 F.3d 953, 956 (5th Cir. 2000) (stating that state prisoners who challenge the improper denial of good

- conduct credit that ma y result in earlier release from prison must seek relief under § 2254) (citations omitted)
. To the extent applicant claims he is actually challenging the amended SVP civil commitment order, we lack jurisdiction to consider it because such a civil appeal ha s already been dismissed in 2013 for want of jurisdiction by the Ninth Court of Appeals , which also concluded that mandamus relief was not warranted. See In re Goodwin , No. 09

- 12

- 00403

- CV, 2013 WL 4399145, at *1 (Tex. App.

—

1 The underlying criminal case is styled as Richard Darren Goodwin v. State of Texas , No. 09

- 12

- 00223

- CR, 435th District Court, Montgomery County, Texas, the Honorable Michael J. Seiler presiding. Applicant ’s initial challenge to his 2005 SVP commitment order was rejected in 2006. See In re Goodwin , No. 09

- 05

- 00 534

- CV, 2006 WL 3027124, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2006, no pet.) (citing T EX . H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . §§ 841.001

- 841.15 (Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2006)).3

Beaumont Aug. 15, 2013, pet. den ied) (mem. op.) . The Texas Supreme Court denied applicant ’s petition for review on January 3, 2014, and denied his rehearing motion on March 28 , 2014. See In re Goodwin , No. 13

- 0739. In any event, this applicat ion is construed as a criminal habeas applic at ion because the Texas Supreme Court has noted that, “while the initial commitment proceeding is civil, a prosecution for violating a condition of commitment is undoubtedly criminal.” In re Commitment of Fisher , 164 S.W.3d 637, 654 (Tex. 2005) (citing T EX . H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . § 841. 085). I f a civilly

committed “person is subsequently convicted of an offense, the statutory duties imposed through the civil commitment order are suspended while he is imprisoned for the new offense.” Goodwin v. State , 416 S.W.3d 90, 9 7 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2013, pet. ref’d)
. Thus, t o the extent this applicat ion is construed as a state criminal habeas applicat ion challenging applicant ’ s third

- degree felony conviction, the relief sought by applicant can only be granted b y a post
- conviction writ of habeas corpus. Applicant directly appealed his 2012 conviction and o n October 30, 2013, his conviction was affirmed by the Ninth Court. See Goodwin , 416 S.W.3d at 98. After t he Ninth Court’s mandate issued on December 30, 20 13, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied applicant ’s two motions for an extension of time to file a petition for discretionary review on May 7 and June 3, 2014
.4

O nly the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to grant state habea s relief in final post

- conviction felony proceedings, which are governed by Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See T EX C ODE . C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.07 (3)(a) (West Supp. 2013 ); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n. 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist. , 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Because applicant’s conviction became final on December 30, 2013 , this is a final post
- conviction felony proceeding and , thus, we have no jurisdiction over th is applicat ion
. See Medina v. State , No. 01

- 14

- 00117

- CR, 2014 WL 1494304, at *1

- 2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] April 15, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeals of final post

- judgment felony pro ceedings for lack of jurisdiction). Accordingly, we dismiss the applicat ion for writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43.2(f); T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.07(3)(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). We dismiss all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Sharp.