Court Opinion

ID: 9386321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 06:07:23.17872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:05.622053
License: Public Domain

DISMISSED and Opinion Filed April 6, 2023

                                   S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00255-CV

                 IN RE WILLIAM SEDRIC AUTREY, Relator

          Original Proceeding from the 204th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. F10-16130-Q

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                           Opinion by Justice Goldstein
      William Sedric Autrey was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to

seventy-five years in prison. This Court affirmed relator’s conviction. See Autrey v.

State, No. 05-13-00709-CR, 2015 WL 4462202 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 21, 2015,

no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The Court issued its mandate on

January 20, 2016.

      In this original proceeding, relator seeks mandamus relief regarding an order

issued by the 416th Judicial District Court in 2010 permitting police to attach a

mobile tracking device to his vehicle. Relator contends the trial court abused its

discretion in denying his motion to suppress evidence gleaned from a traffic stop he

alleges occurred because of information from the tracking device. Relator petitions
to have the tracking order declared void, the evidence from the traffic stop

suppressed, and to have his aggravated robbery conviction overturned to restore him

to the status of awaiting trial.1

        Relator’s petition, although couched as seeking mandamus relief, seeks to

undermine his conviction and thus actually requests post-conviction habeas relief

under article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 11.07, §1; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding); In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 356, 356–57 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Turcios, No.

05-20-00705-CV, 2020 WL 4745544, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 17, 2020, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op, not designated for publication). After a final felony

conviction, the court of criminal appeals has exclusive authority to grant post-

conviction habeas relief. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 5; Bd. of Pardons

and Paroles ex rel. Keene v. The Eighth Court of Appeals, 910 S.W.2d 481, 483

(Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

    1
       This case addresses relator’s request for mandamus relief against the 204th Judicial District Court. In
the same mandamus petition, relator requests relief on the same grounds on separate convictions for
engaging in organized criminal activity in the 296th Judicial District Court. We address relator’s mandamus
action against the 296th Judicial District Court separately in cause no. 05-23-00254-CV. Relator’s petition
also raises the issue of mandamus against the 416th Judicial District Court for issuing the tracking order.
Because it appears that the tracking order was used only in the proceedings in the 204th and 296th Judicial
District Courts, and because we conclude we have no jurisdiction over the issues relator raises, the Court
declines to open a separate case regarding the 416th Judicial District Court. We note that in subsequent
letters seeking to explain his mandamus filings, relator has stated that he intended to seek mandamus relief
against the 204th and 296th Judicial District Courts.
                                                    –2–
       Relator contends that because his conviction arose from the void tracking

order, it is not final, and he should not be required to seek habeas relief under article

11.07. However, a conviction becomes final for purposes of applying article 11.07

when the appellate court issues its mandate. Ex parte Webb, 270 S.W.3d 108, 111

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Because the mandate issued on relator’s case in 2016, his

conviction is final. Id.

       We do not have jurisdiction to consider an original application for writ of

habeas corpus arising from a criminal proceeding. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.

art. 11.05; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d); Ayers, 515 S.W.3d at 356–57;

Turcios, 2020 WL 4745544, at *1. When a relator files a petition for writ of

mandamus requesting only habeas relief that should be brought in an article 11.07

habeas application, the proper course is to dismiss the petition for want of

jurisdiction. Ayers, 515 S.W.3d at 356–57; Turcios, 2020 WL 4745544, at *2.

       Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

                                             /Bonnie Lee Goldstein/
                                             BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
                                             JUSTICE

230255F.P05

                                          –3–