in Re: Johanson Lee Watson, Relator

07-02-0212-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D MAY 13, 2002 ______________________________ IN RE JOHANSON LEE WATSON,

Relator

_________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING _______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, J.J.

Johanson Lee Watson petitions the court for a writ of mandamus asking that we either correct, reverse, or vacate the judgment of conviction allegedly entered in cause number 9480, Wilbarger County, Texas or dismiss said cause. Furthermore, he believes himself entitled to same because the trial court “never found [him] guilty of the indictment 9480, in open court . . . .” We deny the petition.

Mandamus issues to correct error when there is no adequate remedy by law. In re Nolo Press/Folk Law Inc., 991 S.W.2d 768, 776 (Tex. 1999). Given that he questions the legitimacy of his final felony conviction, the statutory remedy of habeas corpus is an avenue available to him. See TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC . ANN . art. 11.07 (Vernon 2002) (discussing that remedy). Indeed, the document he filed with us indicates that such a proceeding was filed and apparently pends for disposition.1 Having a legal remedy available to him, Watson has not satisfied the prerequisites for obtaining a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the writ is denied. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (holding that since the applicant’s attempt to vacate his felony conviction could be reviewed through an habeas proceeding initiated under art. 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, mandamus could not issue).

Brian Quinn

Justice Do not publish.