IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00442-CR No. 10-19-00446-CR No. 10-19-00447-CR No. 10-19-00448-CR No. 10-19-00449-CR No. 10-19-00450-CR No. 10-19-00451-CR No. 10-19-00452-CR No. 10-19-00453-CR No. 10-19-00454-CR IN RE WILLIAM ARTHUR MCINTOSH

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION William Arthur McIntosh, an inmate, requests that we declare his judgments of conviction void and grant writs of mandamus in ten separate final felony convictions from 1994. He argues the failure of the trial court to file an anti-bribery affidavit rendered the convictions “null and void.”

Once a felony conviction becomes final, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to review post-conviction collateral attacks on those convictions. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).

Accordingly, because McIntosh complains about final felony convictions and only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction regarding his complaints, McIntosh’s petitions for writ of mandamus are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Petitions dismissed Opinion delivered and filed December 18, 2019 Do not publish [OT06]

In re McIntosh Page 2