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Do not publish.
1
W atson does no t discuss the status of the habeas proc eed ing he initiated in W ilbarge r Co unty
encompassing the very same issue brought to us. Nor does he ask us to direct the trial court to act in any
manner, assuming that proceeding is pending.
2