in Re Eugenio Martinez

NUMBER 13-12-00434-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE EUGENIO MARTINEZ

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relator, Eugenio Martinez, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus on July 9, 2012. Through this original proceeding, relator requests that we direct the trial court to process relator’s motion for out-of-time appeal. This Court previously affirmed relator’s conviction for the felony offense of retaliation. See Martinez v. State, No. 13-03-00743-CR, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 6136, at *1 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi Aug. 4, 2005, mem. op., not designated for publication).

Article 11.07 vests jurisdiction over post-conviction relief from otherwise final felony convictions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2011); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re Watson, 253 S.W.3d 319, 320 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding). The courts of appeals have no role in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings under article 11.07 and have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in connection with such proceedings. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, §§ 3; 5; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding); In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, relator's petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

9th day of July, 2012.