IN RE: MICHAEL D. THOMPSON

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

IN RE: MICHAEL D. THOMPSON, Relator

No. 05-17-00168-CV

Decided: February 24, 2017

Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Whitehill

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is relator's February 17, 2017 petition for writ of mandamus in which he complains of the trial court's failure to expunge the records and judgment from the underlying case.

In the underlying case, after a jury found appellant guilty of state jail felony burglary of a vehicle, he pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs alleging prior state jail felony convictions. The jury found the enhancement paragraphs true, and assessed punishment at ten years in prison. On appeal, this Court noted that the trial court's judgment incorrectly stated the degree of the offense as “3rd degree felony.” Thompson v. State, 05-15-00709-CR, 2016 WL 1322052, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 5, 2016, no pet.). We modified the trial court's judgment to show the degree of offense was “state jail felony” and affirmed the judgment as modified. Id. We also noted that while the enhancement paragraphs elevated the punishment range from a state jail to third degree felony, it did not change the underlying state jail burglary of a vehicle offense to a third degree felony offense. Id. Mandate issued June 15, 2016.

In this original proceeding, relator argues his conviction is void because this Court's appellate mandate modified the underlying judgment to reflect that he was convicted of a state jail felony rather than of a third-degree felony. Relator asks the Court to expunge the records and judgment from the underlying case. Relator is effectively challenging the validity of his final felony conviction. An attack on the validity of a final felony conviction can only be raised by writ of habeas corpus. The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to grant relief in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding where there is a final felony conviction. Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Ex parte Alexander, 685 S.W.2d 57, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 § 5 (West Supp. 2013). We do not have jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. See, e.g. In re Scott, No. 08-14-00253-CV, 2014 WL 4658700, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Sept. 18, 2014, orig. proceeding) (dismissing petition for want of jurisdiction where relator sought order requiring trial court to remove all references to an expunged case from the records of his conviction). Accordingly, we dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction.

MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE