Opinion issued July 17, 2003

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-03-00705-CV

____________

IN RE EARL SILAS BINGLEY, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator has filed a second petition for writ of mandamus complaining that respondent Fourteenth Court of Appeals erroneously affirmed his 25-year sentence for aggravated sexual assault. See Bingley v. State, No. C14-85-488-CR, slip op. at 3-4 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no pet.) (not designated for publication).

We denied relator's first petition because this Court has no mandamus jurisdiction over the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. In re Bingley, No. 01-03-00590-CV, slip op. at 1-2 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] June 19, 2003, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication). See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon Supp. 2003). Mandamus jurisdiction over the courts of appeals lies only with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in criminal cases. State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, 34 S.W.3d 924, 926-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

In addition, even if we construed relator's document as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, we have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. That jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District, 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3 (Vernon Supp. 2003).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Jennings, and Hanks.