Court Opinion

ID: 9927893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 15:11:53.118003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:28.761729
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                         No. 04-23-01038-CR

                                   EX PARTE Maurice A. MOSES

                      From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                  Trial Court No. 2007CR8924-W1
                             Honorable Angus McGinty, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 24, 2024

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

           In the trial court, Maurice Moses filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to article 11.07, § 3 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, complaining of his confinement

following a criminal conviction for capital murder. On November 17, 2023, Moses filed a notice

of appeal in this court seeking review of “the adverse merits determination” in that proceeding.

Under the exclusive procedure outlined in article 11.07, only the convicting trial court and the

Court of Criminal Appeals have jurisdiction to review the merits of a felony post-conviction

habeas petition; there is no role for the intermediate courts of appeals in the statutory scheme. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 5 (providing that “[a]fter conviction the procedure outlined

in this Act shall be exclusive and any other proceeding shall be void and of no force and effect in

discharging the prisoner”). Thus, only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to grant post-
                                                                                    04-23-01038-CR

conviction release from confinement for persons with a felony conviction. Id. art. 11.07, § 3;

Hoang v. State, 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The intermediate courts of appeals

have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. Bd. of Pardons

& Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1995) (orig. proceeding).

        We therefore ordered Moses to show cause why this application should not be dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction. Moses did not respond to our order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction.

                                                 PER CURIAM

Do not publish

                                               -2-