in Re: Gerald Williams

COURT OF APPEALS

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

 

                                                                              )

                                                                              )

                                                                              )

                                                                              )              No.  08-04-00237-CR

                                                                              )

IN RE:  GERALD WILLIAMS                             )                   AN ORIGINAL

                                                                              )

                                                                              )     PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS

                                                                              )

                                                                              )

                                                                              )

 

MEMORANDUM  OPINION  ON  WRIT  OF  MANDAMUS

 


Relator Gerald Williams has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court=s failure to act on his post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus.  The documents attached to Relator=s mandamus petition indicate that the trial court has not acted on the habeas application for over four years.[1]  This Court, however, does not have jurisdiction over matters related to post-conviction writs of habeas corpus.  See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).  Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus compelling a trial court to act on a petition for writ of habeas corpus.  See McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 718; see also Martin v. Hamlin, 25 S.W.3d 718, 719 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 578-79 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992).  Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed.

 

 

September 9, 2004

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice

 

Before Panel No. 3

Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and Chew, JJ.

 

(Do Not Publish)



[1] A letter to Relator from a deputy district clerk, dated April 13, 2004, states that the clerk=s office received Relator=s habeas application on June 28, 2000.  On June 30, 2000, the trial court signed an order designating issues and granting the State=s motion to file an amended answer.  The letter from the deputy district clerk states that there has been no further order from the trial court.