COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-15-00003-CV
IN RE CONNIE RAY PALMER RELATOR
----------
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
TRIAL COURT NO. 43,866-B
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
----------
Relator Connie Ray Palmer seeks a writ of mandamus, asking us to order
the 78th District Court of Wichita County to “correct a defective certification of the
right to appeal” his conviction for aggravated robbery. This conviction is final; we
previously dismissed the appeal of it for want of jurisdiction based on relator’s
waiver of his right to appeal, and relator did not timely seek review with the court
of criminal appeals. See Palmer v. State, No. 02-09-00211-CR, 2009 WL
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
2414363, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 6, 2009, pet. dism’d) (mem. op., not
designated for publication).
Relator wants us to “order the trial court . . . to [resubmit] a proper
certification of [his] right to appeal showing [he] has a limited right to appeal
matters related to his illegal sentence.” But he predicates this requested relief
upon challenges to the validity of his final conviction and alleged errors that
occurred before it, including his principal argument that he entered into an illegal
plea bargain associated with the revocation of his deferred adjudication
community supervision.
After a final felony conviction, the procedure outlined in article 11.07 of the
code of criminal procedure—filing an application for writ of habeas corpus with
the court of criminal appeals—is the exclusive means of seeking relief. Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, §§ 1, 3(a), 5 (West Supp. 2014); see Ater v.
Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig.
proceeding) (holding that in granting a writ of mandamus to vacate a judgment of
conviction on the basis of an allegedly invalid guilty plea, a court of appeals
usurped the exclusive authority of the court of criminal appeals to grant
postconviction relief); see also In re Crain, No. 05-14-01623-CV, 2015 WL
84675, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
(holding that the court of appeals had no jurisdiction to hear various complaints
related to a final felony conviction); In re Jackson, Nos. 05-14-00988-CV, 05-14-
2
00989-CV, 05-14-00990-CV, 05-14-00991-CV, 2014 WL 3962822, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Aug. 14, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“The only proper
means of collaterally attacking a final felony conviction is via petition for writ of
habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure.”); In re Cox,
No. 03-12-00342-CV, 2012 WL 2076852, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin June 7, 2012,
orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“A claim of an illegal sentence, under the
circumstances presented here, is not an appropriate basis for mandamus relief
but instead is a matter for habeas-corpus relief.”). Because relator premises the
relief that he seeks on collateral attacks on his conviction and because such
collateral attacks are not cognizable in this mandamus proceeding, we dismiss
his petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. See Ater, 802 S.W.2d at
243; Crain, 2015 WL 84675, at *1.
/s/ Terrie Livingston
TERRIE LIVINGSTON
CHIEF JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ.
DELIVERED: January 16, 2015
3