Court Opinion

ID: 9394393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 11:07:20.226781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:59.926758
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued May 11, 2023

                                      In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                     For The

                          First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                              NO. 01-22-00040-CR
                           ———————————
                     SAMUEL ROY JACKSON, Appellant
                                        V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 183rd District Court
                           Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Case No. 913043

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Samuel Roy Jackson, attempts to appeal the denial of his post-

conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal.

      On October 28, 2004, a jury convicted appellant of the felony offense of

aggravated robbery and assessed punishment at 35 years’ confinement in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division. Our Court affirmed the

judgment on November 17, 2005. See Jackson v. State, No. 01-04-01137-CR, 2005

WL 3072018, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 17, 2005, pet. withdrawn).

The mandate subsequently issued on April 17, 2006. Since the issuance of the

mandate, appellant has filed multiple post-conviction applications for writ of habeas

corpus that have been either denied or dismissed. Appellant’s most recent

application for writ of habeas corpus was filed on August 19, 2021. On November

12, 2021, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his most recent habeas

application.

      Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along

with an Anders brief stating that the appeal is without merit and frivolous because

our Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). We agree that our Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Only the Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony

proceedings. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d); Ater v. Eighth Court of

Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also Ex parte Alexander,

685 S.W.2d 57, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (“It is well established that only the Court

of Criminal Appeals possesses the authority to grant relief in a post-conviction

habeas corpus proceeding where there is a final felony conviction.”).

                                          2
      Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Any pending

motions, including the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel, are

dismissed as moot.

                                 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.

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

                                           3