IN RE: Joe Trampas Benavides (2015)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial court to enforce his plea agreement.   A post-conviction petition for writ of mandamus premised on failure to specifically enforce a plea agreement is an improper collateral attack on the conviction.   See In re Malone, No. 05–14–01458–CV, 2014 WL 6779279, at *2 (Tex.App.–Dallas Dec. 2, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem.op.) (concluding Court lacked jurisdiction over complaint that trial court had failed to specifically enforce his plea agreement);  In re Jackson, No. 05–14–00988–CV, 2014 WL 3962822, at *1 (Tex.App.–Dallas Aug. 14, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem.op.) (same)

The only proper means of collaterally attacking confinement pursuant to a final felony conviction is via petition for writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure.  Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann.. art. 11.07, § 5 (West Supp.2014) (“After 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.”).   This Court has no jurisdiction over complaints that should be raised by post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings brought under article 11.07.   See Tex.Code Crim. P. Ann.. arts. 11.05, 11.07 (West 2005 & Supp.2014);  see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (orig. proceeding) (in granting writ of mandamus to vacate judgment of conviction, court of appeals usurped exclusive authority of court of criminal appeals to grant post-conviction relief).

We DISMISS the petition for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion by Justice Stoddart