Court Opinion

ID: 9917390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 12:09:09.702656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:36.553097
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-23-00378-CR

                      EX PARTE ANDRE RENOR EVANS

                           From the 19th District Court
                            McLennan County, Texas
                           Trial Court No. 2015-1341-C1

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

       The “Motion of Leave Requesting En Banc Hearing Objection #2 11.07

Application” was received and filed by the Clerk of this Court on November 27, 2023.

The document had been forwarded to this Court by the district clerk of McLennan

County. In the motion, Andre Renor Evans complained about the actions of the trial court

but was unclear what order or judgment was the subject of the complaint. The motion

appeared to possibly relate to a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus.

Uncertain of what it was or our jurisdiction to address the complaint, and pursuant to

Rule 44.3, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court sent a letter to Evans on

November 29, 2023. The letter questioned the Court’s jurisdiction and pointed out that

“this Court has no jurisdiction to review a ruling on an article 11.07 writ of habeas corpus
proceeding.“ The notice also informed Evans that the Court of Criminal Appeals is “the

only court with jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings.” The notice

further informed Evans that the proceeding would be dismissed unless a response was

filed “explaining what you are attempting to appeal and how the Court has jurisdiction

of the appeal.”

       A timely response was received and filed on December 19, 2023. The response

confirms that the document originally filed was not an attempted appeal but rather was

related to an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the convicting court. In an

effort to confirm our lack of jurisdiction, we reviewed the Court of Criminal Appeals’

filings and determined Evans’ application for a writ of habeas corpus in trial court docket

number 2015-1341-C1B, docketed in the Court of Criminal Appeals as WR-72522-06, had

been dismissed without written order on November 16, 2023. Moreover, in reviewing

Evans’ response, it is clear that the motion filed on November 27, 2023 in this Court was

an effort to complain about the trial court’s findings related to a habeas corpus

proceeding and sought reconsideration of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ dismissal of his

most recent application for a writ of habeas corpus: WR-72522-06. It is unclear why the

motion was forwarded to this Court rather than to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

       However, based on the foregoing, it is very clear that in this proceeding, we have

no jurisdiction of the complaint Evans has raised with regard to the trial court’s findings

and the Court of Criminal Appeals’ disposition of Evans’ application for a writ of habeas

corpus. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Ex parte Evans                                                                       Page 2
       Accordingly, this proceeding is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

                                         TOM GRAY
                                         Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Proceeding dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed January 11, 2024
Do not publish
[OT06]

Ex parte Evans                                                               Page 3