LEROY CHARLES WILSON APPELLANT v. <<

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

LEROY CHARLES WILSON APPELLANT v.

NO. 02–11–00268–CR

Decided: August 29, 2011

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

THE STATE OF TEXAS

STATE

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Appellant Leroy Charles Wilson attempts to appeal from the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial, in which he complains about the trial court's findings of fact.   The trial court's findings of fact were made in response to a December 8, 2010 order by the court of criminal appeals on appellant's application for writ of habeas corpus.   In the order, the court of criminal appeals instructed the trial court to order the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's Office of the General Counsel to file an affidavit listing appellant's sentence history.   The court of criminal appeals also instructed the trial court to make findings of fact as to whether appellant had properly exhausted his administrative remedies and what time, if any, appellant was entitled to, as well as any other findings of fact and conclusions of law “that it deem[ed] relevant and appropriate to the disposition of [appellant's] claims for habeas corpus relief.”   Ex parte Wilson, No. WR–52158–04, 2010 WL 4978452, at *1 (Tex.Crim.App. Dec. 8, 2010, order) (not designated for publication).   The court also ordered that appellant's application be held in abeyance until the trial court had resolved the fact issues.  Id. at *2.

On July 14, 2011, this court notified appellant of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because we do not have jurisdiction over complaints involving article 11.07 writs of habeas corpus.   See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp.2010).   We stated that unless appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.   Appellant filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing this appeal.   Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.   See Tex.R.App. P. 43.2(f);  see also Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07;  Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (orig.proceeding) (stating that the court of criminal appeals is the “only court with jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings”).

PANEL:  MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

Tex.R.App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  August 25, 2011

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4..  FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.

Copied to clipboard