### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00018- CV
In re Raym ond Fier ro

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM CO MAL CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator Ray

mond Fier

ro filed a pro se petition f or writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22
. 2 21 (West Supp. 2010); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. He complains that the trial cour t judge has fa iled to act on a r ecusa l motion filed in c onnection with a post-conviction writ of habea s corpus. Fier ro seeks a writ of mandamus from this Court direc ting 1 the judg e to either

rec use himself fr om Fier ro’s post-c onviction habea s proce eding s or reque st the presiding judge of the administrative reg ion to assig n a judge to h ea r t h e rec usal motion. See generally Tex. Code Crim. P roc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2010); Tex. R. C iv. P. 18a. Article 11.07 vests complete jurisdiction over post-c o nv ic ti o n r e lief from final felony convictions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls. See Tex. Code Crim
. P ro c. An n . art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2010); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist. ,

Fier ro previously filed an application for writ o f habea s corpus which was denied by 1 the Court of Criminal Appea ls. I t is unclea r from the rec ord whether Fier ro has filed the second application for writ of habeas corpus from which he wishes to rec use the trial judge
. His petition sug g ests that he filed the motion to rec use the judge in anticipation of filing the succe ssive habea s application.910 S.W .2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App
. 1 9 9 5); In re W atson , 253 S.W .3d 319, 320 (Tex. App.—Amar illo 2008, orig
. proce eding ). The courts of appea ls have no role in criminal law matters perta ining to proc eeding s under a rticle 11.07 a

nd have no a

uthority to issue writs of mandamus in
connec tion with such procee dings. See I n re Briscoe , 20 S.W .3d 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2006, orig
. proce eding ); In re McAfe e , 53 S.W .3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig
. proce eding ); see also T ex . C o d e C ri m. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 5 (West Supp. 2010). Thus, complain t s re garding the trial court’s failure to addre ss a rec usal motion filed in
connec tion with an 11.07 post-conviction habea s proce eding should be addre ssed to the Cou rt of Criminal Appea ls. S

ee In r e Golden , No. 12-11-00181- CR, 2011 WL 3329867, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler J uly 13, 2011) (mem op., not desig nated for publication) ( r e la to r ’ s c o mplaint about trial court’s failure to act on rec usal motion filed in post-conviction writ of habea s co rp us proce eding dismiss ed for want of jurisdiction); see also Ex pa r t e Si n egar , 324 S.W .3d 578, 580 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (addr essing complaint reg arding trial court’s failure to a ct on motion to rec use filed in a post-convic tion habeas pr ocee ding)
.

Acc o rd i ng ly , Fier

ro’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismiss ed for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: F ebrua

ry 9, 2012 2