IN RE: Michael William Godfrey (2015)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 2, 2015, relator Michael William Godfrey filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.  See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004);  see also Tex.R.App. P. 52.  In the petition, relator asks this court to review for legal and factual sufficiency the findings of fact entered by the Honorable Brad Hart, presiding judge of the 230th District Court of Harris County, in the underlying habeas corpus proceeding.

Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings.  Tex.Code Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West 2015);  Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (orig.proceeding);  Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (orig.proceeding).  Therefore, this court has no mandamus jurisdiction in matters related to petitions for writ of habeas corpus in criminal cases.  See In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] orig. proceeding) (“We have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings under article 11.07);  In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 175, 718 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (concluding that court of appeals had no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings under article 11.07).  To complain about any action or inaction of the convicting court, relator may seek mandamus relief from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  See Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d at 196–97;  McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 718.

Accordingly, we dismiss relator's petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM