IN RE: George Longoria (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 7, 2016, relator George Longoria, proceeding pro se, filed a pleading in this Court through which he seeks release from incarceration because:  (1) he was denied effective assistance of counsel, and (2) he is being confined illegally in violation of his constitutional rights.  This Court affirmed relator's conviction for murder in 1997.  See Longoria v. State, No. 13–95–00301–CR, 1997 WL 33641975, at *1 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 13, 1997, no pet.) (not designated for publication).  Relator requests that we grant review, order briefing and oral argument, and reverse his illegal confinement.  We construe relator's pleading as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.  See, e.g., Ex parte Kerr, 64 S.W.3d 414, 419 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (“The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to obtain a speedy and effective adjudication of a person's right to liberation from illegal restraint.”).

Because relator's petition reflects that he has filed an article 11.07 application for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, his petition relates to a pending post-conviction habeas corpus application involving a final felony conviction.  This Court does not have jurisdiction to grant relator's requested relief.  Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings.  See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.);  Padieu v. Ct. of Apps. of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex.Crim.App.2013).  Only the convicting court and court of criminal appeals have any role to play in attempts to raise post-conviction challenges to final felony convictions.  In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).  For that reason, we may not grant a writ of mandamus, a writ of injunction or any other writ of any kind that would result in vacating a judgment of conviction.  See Ater v. Eighth Ct. of Apps., 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (orig.proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of habeas corpus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this matter.  Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1