Court Opinion

ID: 2897547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-08 00:59:08.053681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:06.229592
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-08-0106-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

MARCH 28, 2008

______________________________

In re JOHANSON LEE WATSON,

Relator  

_________________________________

Opinion on Original Proceeding for Writ of Mandamus

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Johanson Lee Watson, an indigent inmate, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his application for writ of habeas corpus.  Through the purported application for habeas corpus, he attempts to nullify his prior felony conviction.  For the reason expressed below, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases.  
See
 
id.; Board of Pardons and Paroles ex. rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist
., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App.1995); 
In re Briscoe, 
230 S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex. App.–Houston [14
th
 Dist.] 2006) (original proceeding) (stating that courts of appeal have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases).  So, to complain about any action, or inaction, of the convicting court, the applicant may seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.  
See In re Briscoe, 
230 S.W.3d at 196
. 	

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

 

Per Curiam