Court Opinion

ID: 4058358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 09:06:27.826523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:33:38.257009
License: Public Domain

U

____________________._.._=_____:________£_“_____,_.___£_____»_,~.

momm-wo_‘mw .X._. _O._.__m<_>_<
_ _‘mm xDam room

wwmm_.©_. #OO._. - ._._ZD m._.Zm_>_m¢_O
mImOZ IOm__.E< G._mu w_£ cO
mwoom".d§>g…@ ‘,M_,.H..M ,..; om_._m< n_._>

    

 

. mmD mw<>_m&
k COL \C..“:MU LO ,_.MDOO §OME m.U:lOZ 1_<._0;-@

.RECE|VED l
couR-T oF chM)NAL-A§PEALS

\

DEC 2129@5

AbeSAcosta, Clerk

Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 23, 2015

 

ln The
Court of Appeals
Iiifih Dioir_ict of Texas at Dalla§

 

No. 05-15-01366:i:v '

 

IN RE REGINALD A. NOBLE, Relator

 

Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-0050025-K

 

MEMORANDUM OPlNlON
Bef`ore'Justices Francis, Myers`, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Francis

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus complaining that the trial court failed to
comply with its statutory duties in-connection with his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We
lack jurisdiction over the petition This Court has not been given general supervisory control
over district and county courts. Texas Emp Ihs Ass' n v Kirby, 150 S.W.2d 123, 126 (Tex. Civ.
App._Dallas 1941, no writ). While the courts of appeals have concurrent- mandam_us`-~-
jurisdictionlwith the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in post-conviction proceedings in which il
this Court has appellate jurisdiction over the trial court’s ruling, see é.g., Padz'lla v. McDaniel,
122 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Tex. Crini. App. 2003) (forensic DNA testing), the Court has no
jurisdiction in post- -conviction habeas corpus proceedings brought under article 11. 07 of the
Texas Code ofCriminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015);1n
re McAfee, 53 S.W.Sd 715, 717 (Tex. App.-¥Houston [15t Dist.] 2001,' orig. proceeding).

“Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of-` appeals; the only courts referred to are the

convicting court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.” 111 re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 718.
Consequently, any complaints about action or inaction on a matter related to a post-conviction
petition for writ of habeas corpus must be brought by mandamus to the Texa's Court of Criminal
Appeals and notto this Court. In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 717. l

We dismiss the petition for want ofjurisdiction.

1'513661~`.1>05 /Molly Francis/
MoLLY FRANCIS
JusTICE

Order entered November 23, 2015

 

In 'I`he

Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

 

\No. 05-15-01366~CV

IN RE REGINALD A. NOBLE, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-0050025-K

ORDER

Before Justices Francis, Myers and Schenck
,Based. on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the petition for writ of
mandamus. Although we have considered relator’s petition without the prepayment of costs, we
DENY as moot relator’s motion for leave to file his affidavit of indigence. We DENY as

unnecessary relator’s motion for leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus We ORDER

relator to bear the costs ofthis original proceeding

/s/ , MoLLY FRANCIS `
JusTICE