Opinion filed June 30, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-22-00160-CR

__________

IN RE EDDIE DALE UNDERWOOD

Original Mandamus Proceeding

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

Relator, Eddie Dale Underwood, has filed a pro se petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. He requests that we direct the Honorable Judge Brooks 

Hagler, district judge of the 259th District Court, to vacate an allegedly “void order” 

and to take other necessary steps to cure the problems caused by that order. Relator 

also asks that we direct the trial court to conduct a “probable cause hearing.” We 

deny the habeas relief requested by Relator.

While we agree with Relator that mandamus may issue to nullify a void order, 

see State ex rel. Eidson v. Edwards, 793 S.W.2d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), we 

cannot agree that the ruling about which Relator complains constitutes a “void 

order.” The allegedly “void order” about which Relator complains is a letter ruling 

dated April 12, 2022, in which the trial court denied Relator’s request for a hearing 
2

and informed Relator that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over Relator’s 

case. Prior to the trial court’s letter ruling, Relator had filed a writ of habeas corpus

in the trial court, purportedly pursuant to Article 11.08, and had requested a 

“probable cause hearing” to test the legality of his confinement. See TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.08 (West 2015). After issuing the April 12 letter ruling, 

the trial court signed an order on April 21, 2022, in which the trial court denied 

Relator’s Article 11.08 writ of habeas corpus.

1

 The trial court explained in its 

April 21 order that it was without jurisdiction to grant the “pre-conviction relief” 

requested by Relator because Relator had already “been convicted” and “sentenced”

in the cause for which Relator sought relief under Article 11.08. 

Article 11.08 provides for habeas relief for an individual who is confined after 

indictment on a felony charge. Id.; Ward v. State, No. AP-77,096, 2020 WL 

3265251, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. June 17, 2020). As noted by the Court of 

Criminal Appeals, an indicted defendant—if “not yet finally convicted”—may file 

an Article 11.08 writ of habeas corpus in the district court. Ward, 2020 WL 

6275251, at *1. Thus, an individual who has been finally convicted of a felony and 

sentenced to imprisonment may not seek habeas relief under Article 11.08; he must 

instead file an Article 11.07 writ application. See CRIM. PROC. arts. 11.07, 11.08; 

Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 

S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (“Article 11.07 provides 

the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction.”); see also Ex parte 

Sayyed, No. 05-19-01460-CR, 2019 WL 6696034, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 9, 

2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 

1

We note that Relator filed an appeal from the trial court’s order. On this same date, this court has 

dismissed that appeal, our Cause No. 11-22-00137-CR, for want of jurisdiction.
3

Because Relator has been finally convicted in the underlying cause, he is no 

longer entitled to any relief under Article 11.08 and is, therefore, not entitled to a 

probable cause hearing. Accordingly, neither the trial court’s April 12 letter ruling 

nor the April 21 order constitutes a “void order.” Relator is therefore not entitled to 

the mandamus relief that he now seeks in this court. 

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is, in all things, denied. 

PER CURIAM

June 30, 2022

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.