Court Opinion

ID: 9898800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 07:09:59.594455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:58.806792
License: Public Domain

DISMISSED and Opinion Filed November 7, 2023

                                  S  In The
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                              No. 05-23-01024-CV
                              No. 05-23-01025-CV
                              No. 05-23-01026-CV
                              No. 05-23-01027-CV
                              No. 05-23-01028-CV
                              No. 05-23-01029-CV
                              No. 05-23-01030-CV
                              No. 05-23-01031-CV
                              No. 05-23-01032-CV
                              No. 05-23-01033-CV
                              No. 05-23-01034-CV
                              No. 05-23-01035-CV

                    IN RE ROCKY CORONADO, Relator

        Original Proceedings from the 283rd Judicial District Court
                          Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F1400535, F1456967, F1456968, F1476064, F1456969,
F1476111, F1400536, F1400537, F1456963, F1456965, F1456962, and F146964

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                          Opinion by Justice Goldstein
      Before the Court is relator’s October 16, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus.

In 2016, relator was adjudicated guilty of, among other things, aggravated

kidnapping, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and burglary of a habitation

with intent to commit aggravated assault and sentenced to twenty years’
confinement, with the sentences running concurrently. In 2017, this Court affirmed

relator’s convictions, as modified, on direct appeal. See Coronado v. State, No. 05-

16-01001-CR through No. 05-16-01009-CR, 2017 WL 6503092, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Dec. 18, 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication).

      In his petition, relator makes various complaints challenging his convictions.

For example, he argues that the trial judge knew or should have known of wrongful

and unlawful conduct by relator’s counsel that violated relator’s constitutional and

civil rights; that the district attorney’s office withheld exculpatory evidence; and that

he had ineffective assistance of counsel. Relator asks this Court to review the

records, contending he was wrongfully convicted of crimes that were never

committed.

      Relator is attempting to collaterally attack his convictions. See In re Turcios,

No. 05-22-01378-CV, No. 05-22-01379-CV, 2023 WL 154876, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Jan. 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). The vehicle to collaterally attack

a felony conviction is a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus filed

under article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure. Id. (citing Bd. of Pardons &

Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Ct. of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 484

(Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding)). It is well-established that intermediate

courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in

felony cases. See id. (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(a)–(b) and Ex

parte Alexander, 685 S.W.2d 57, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)).

                                          –2–
     Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

     Also before the Court is relator’s October 30, 2023 Motion of Supplement and

Request for a De Novo Review. We deny the motion as moot.

                                          /Bonnie Lee Goldstein/
                                          BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
231024F.P05                               JUSTICE

                                       –3–