KEITH WAYNE LUNDY JR v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from an order that a postconviction writ of habeas corpus, returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals, would issue by operation of law, and denying all other requested relief. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Lundy was convicted of felony assault involving family violence with previous convictions. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.01(b)(2)(A). He was sentenced to two years in prison. In October 2016, Lundy filed a postconviction application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, complaining that his mandatory release date had been “removed” without notice or a hearing. He attached a copy of the “Notice of Parole Panel Decision” by the Board of Pardons and Paroles regarding his mandatory release review date.

The trial court issued an order designating issues of fact to be resolved, and it set a submission date. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(d). After giving the parties an opportunity to file affidavits, the trial court signed its findings of fact and conclusions of law on November 15, 2016. It ordered that “a Writ of Habeas Corpus, returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals, shall issue by operation of law.” All other requested relief was denied.

Lundy filed objections to the findings of fact and conclusions of law, followed by a notice of appeal.

Our court has jurisdiction in criminal cases as granted by law. Id. Although an article 11.07 writ is to be filed in the trial court, it must be made returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. at § 3(a); Maye v. State, 966 S.W.2d 140, 143 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). Because jurisdiction in this type of case rests exclusively with the Court of Criminal Appeals, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Maye, 966 S.W.2d at 143; Gilbert v. State, No. 01–09–00109–CR, 2009 WL 1959010, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 9, 2009, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (citing Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM