## NO. 12

- 20

- 00131

- C R
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:
COREY DARNELL WEBB , RELATO R § § § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Corey Darnell Webb , acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus , in which he
reques ts that we order Respondent to vacate a summons from August 3, 2 010 and an order o f discreti onary tr ansfe r to adult criminal court f rom Augu st 26, 2 010

. 1 We dismiss f or want of jurisdiction

.

B ACKGROUND On August 3, 2010 , the S tate of T exas filed a petition char ging Webb with delinquent conduct and a petition for discretionary transfer from juve nile c our t to adult criminal district
court

. A summ ons was issued requiring Webb to appear for a hearing on August 26 t o answer to the State ’ s allegations

. On August 26 , Respondent signed an order transferring the case to adult criminal court. Webb was s ubsequ ent ly ch arged by indictment with aggravated as sault of a public
servant , a felony, and pleaded “not guilty , ” but d uring trial, he change d his plea to “guilty.” Web b v. State , No. 12

- 12

- 00011

- CR, 2013 WL 3377398, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Tyler July 3, 2013, no pet

. ) (mem. o p. , not designated for publication). Webb late r moved to withdraw his “guilty” plea and t he district court denied the m otion. Id

. T he district court found Webb “guilty” as charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for fifty years. Id

. W ebb ap pea led f rom b oth the

1 Resp ondent is the Honorable Floyd T. Getz, Judge of the County Court at Law N o. 3 in S mit h County, Texas. The State of Texas is the Real Pa r ty in I nterest.2 denial of his motion to withdraw the “ guilty ” plea and Respondent ’ s transfer of the matter to dist rict court. Id

. His appellate counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 139 6, 18 L. E d. 2d 493 (1967 ) and Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969)

. Id

. This Court affirmed the conviction

. Id

. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied habeas relief without a written order. 2 See Ex parte Webb , WR

81, 792

- 0 1 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. Sep t. 24, 2014) (order). W ebb filed this original proceeding on June 3, 2020

.

A VAILA BIL ITY OF M ANDAMUS Webb compl a ins that the summons did not effectuate val id service because it fail ed to notify him that dis cretionary transfer to di strict c o urt would be con sidere d at the August 26 hearing. He maintains that , as a result, Respondent did not obtain jurisdiction to ho l d a hearing on discretionary transfer or to subsequently sign the order of discretionary transfer. As previously sta ted, Web b appealed from t he tra nsfe r to distric t court , a n d t his Court affirmed. Web b , 2013 WL 3377398, at *1

. Webb has been convicted and sentenced for a final felony conviction and his attempt to set aside Respondent ’ s order waiving jurisdiction and
tr ansferri n g to criminal di strict court amounts to a r equest for post

- conviction relief from a final felony conviction

. See e.g. In re J. B.H. , No. 14

- 13

- 00072

- CV, 2013 WL 504106 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14 th Dist.] Feb. 12, 201 3 , orig. proceeding) (mem. o p., not d esignated for
publicat ion ) ( per curiam ) ( “ even though relator is seeking juvenile court records, the relief that he seeks is fr om a final, felony conviction ” ) ; In re Albarado , No. 11

- 13

- 00033

- CR, 2013 WL 600224 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Eastland Feb. 7, 2 013, ori g . proceeding) (m em. op

. , not designated for publication) (per curiam ) ( c omplaint that juvenile court should be ordered to void order waiving jurisdiction and transferring to criminal district court for criminal proceedings as an adult was essen tia lly a re q uest for postcon victio n habeas relief because relator sought an order in support of attempt to set aside original conviction an d sentence )

. The appropriate method for collaterally attacking a final felony conviction is by a petition for writ of habeas c o rpus. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.07 (West 2005). This Court has no jurisdiction over complaints that may be raised on ly by postconviction habeas corpus

2 T he Texas Court of Crimina l Appe als also dismissed three subsequent h abeas applications filed by Webb

. See Ex parte Webb , WR

- 8 1,792

- 04 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 8, 2020 ) (order) ; see a ls o Ex parte Webb , WR

- 81,792

- 03 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 2 0 , 2017) (order) ; Ex pa rte Webb , WR

- 81,792

- 0 2 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 14, 2016) (order).3 proceedings brought under Article 11.07

. See id

. arts. 11.05 , 11.07 (West 2005)

. Only the convicting court and th e court of crimin al app eals have any role to play in attempts to raise postconviction challenges to fina l felony convictions

. See In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.

– Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proc eeding) ; see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App . 1991) ( orig. pro ceeding) (in granting writ of mandamus to vacate conviction appellate court found void, court of appeals usurped exclusi ve author ity of court of crimi nal ap peals to grant postconviction relief); see also Noble v. State , No. 05

- 17

- 01409

- CR, 2017 WL 654708 3, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Dec. 22, 2017, no pet. ) (mem.
op., not designated for publication) (to extent appellant sought to challenge pur portedly void jud gment by filing post

- conviction habeas application, appellate court had no jurisdiction over such pr oceedi ngs)

. Accordingly, under the ci rcumstances of this cas e, we lack jurisdiction to consider Webb ’ s complaints. 3

D ISPOSIT ION Havin g det ermined that this Court does not possess jurisdiction to address the contentions

ra ised in Webb ’ s petition for writ of man damus, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction

. Opinion delivered September 2 , 2020. Panel consis ted of Worthen, C.J., Hoy le, J., a nd Neeley, J.

3 We also note that “ an application for writ of habeas corpus is generally an adequate remedy that will preclu de mandamus relief. ” In re Albarado , No. 11

- 13

- 00033

- CR, 2013 WL 600224 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Eastland F eb. 7, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op

. , not designated for publication) (per curiam )

.4 

## COURT OF AP PEALS
TWELFT H COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF T EXAS
J UDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 2 , 2020
NO. 12

- 20

- 00131

- C R

COREY DARN ELL WEBB , Relator V.
HON
. FLOYD T. GETZ , Respon dent

O RIGINAL P ROCEEDING

ON THIS DA Y came to be h eard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Corey Darnell Webb ; who is th e re lator in appe llate cause numb er 12

- 20

- 00131

- CR and the respondent in trial court cause numb er 003

- 0217

- 10 in the County Co urt at Law No. 3 of Smith County , Texas . Said p etition for writ of mandamus having been filed h erein o n June 3 , 2020 , and the same having been dul y co ns i dered, be cause it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue , it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said
pe titi on for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. By per curiam op ini on. Panel consisted of Wor the n, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.