Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 09-21-2020
Case Style:
In re Lawrence Floyd Miller III
Case Number: 01-20-00537-CR
Judge: PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Lloyd and Countiss.
Court: Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Plaintiff's Attorney: Jerilynn Yenne
Defendant's Attorney:
Free National Lawyer Directory
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description: Houston, Texas, aggravated sexual assault
 |
On August 7, 2003, relator, Andre Jones, was convicted of aggravated
sexual assault and sentenced to 45 years in prison (trial court cause number
917355). Appellant appealed his conviction and we issued an opinion affirming
the conviction on January 27, 2005. See Jones v. State, No. 01-03-00828-CR,
2
2005 WL 174484, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 27, 2005, no pet.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication). Our mandate issued on June 15, 2005.
On July 31, 2020, relator filed an “2nd Amended Application for a Writ of
Mandamus,” asserting various errors in the underlying conviction and that this
Court should order the lower court “his right to release as a United States Citizen.”
Relator’s mandamus petition is a collateral attack on a final felony
conviction and, therefore, falls within the scope of a post-conviction writ of habeas
corpus under article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. Article 11.07 provides the exclusive means to
challenge the conviction. See id.; Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist.,
392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Although “the courts of appeals
have mandamus jurisdiction in criminal matters, only the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings.” In re
McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig.
proceeding); see also In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (“Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts
of appeals.”). Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction over relator’s mandamus
petition.
Outcome: We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction. We overrule any pending
motions as moot.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: