COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00003-CV

IN RE CONNIE RAY PALMER RELATOR

----------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

TRIAL COURT NO. 43,866-B

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Relator Connie Ray Palmer seeks a writ of mandamus, asking us to order 

the 78th District Court of Wichita County to “correct a defective certification of the 

right to appeal” his conviction for aggravated robbery. This conviction is final; we 

previously dismissed the appeal of it for want of jurisdiction based on relator’s

waiver of his right to appeal, and relator did not timely seek review with the court 

of criminal appeals. See Palmer v. State, No. 02-09-00211-CR, 2009 WL 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
2

2414363, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 6, 2009, pet. dism’d) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication).

Relator wants us to “order the trial court . . . to [resubmit] a proper 

certification of [his] right to appeal showing [he] has a limited right to appeal 

matters related to his illegal sentence.” But he predicates this requested relief 

upon challenges to the validity of his final conviction and alleged errors that 

occurred before it, including his principal argument that he entered into an illegal 

plea bargain associated with the revocation of his deferred adjudication 

community supervision.

After a final felony conviction, the procedure outlined in article 11.07 of the 

code of criminal procedure—filing an application for writ of habeas corpus with 

the court of criminal appeals—is the exclusive means of seeking relief. Tex. 

Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, §§ 1, 3(a), 5 (West Supp. 2014); see Ater v. 

Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. 

proceeding) (holding that in granting a writ of mandamus to vacate a judgment of 

conviction on the basis of an allegedly invalid guilty plea, a court of appeals 

usurped the exclusive authority of the court of criminal appeals to grant 

postconviction relief); see also In re Crain, No. 05-14-01623-CV, 2015 WL 

84675, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) 

(holding that the court of appeals had no jurisdiction to hear various complaints 

related to a final felony conviction); In re Jackson, Nos. 05-14-00988-CV, 05-14-
3

00989-CV, 05-14-00990-CV, 05-14-00991-CV, 2014 WL 3962822, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas Aug. 14, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“The only proper 

means of collaterally attacking a final felony conviction is via petition for writ of 

habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure.”); In re Cox, 

No. 03-12-00342-CV, 2012 WL 2076852, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin June 7, 2012, 

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“A claim of an illegal sentence, under the 

circumstances presented here, is not an appropriate basis for mandamus relief 

but instead is a matter for habeas-corpus relief.”). Because relator premises the 

relief that he seeks on collateral attacks on his conviction and because such 

collateral attacks are not cognizable in this mandamus proceeding, we dismiss 

his petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. See Ater, 802 S.W.2d at 

243; Crain, 2015 WL 84675, at *1.

/s/ Terrie Livingston

TERRIE LIVINGSTON

CHIEF JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 16, 2015