in Re Melvin Ray Wright

 

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

 

 


No. 10-07-00351-CR

 

In re Melvin Ray Wright

 

 


Original Proceeding

 

 

MEMORANDUM  Opinion

 

            Melvin Ray Wright seeks a writ of mandamus to obtain reversal of his 2005 felony conviction for deadly conduct and/or deletion of an affirmative deadly weapon finding contained in the judgment of conviction.  Wright presents three issues: (1) the trial court “did not perform his ministerial duty” by conducting a hearing in Wright’s absence; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by entering an affirmative deadly weapon finding; and (3) the trial court’s successor in office abused his discretion by not ruling on Wright’s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc in which Wright alleged that the conviction should be reversed due to insufficient evidence.

            Wright’s mandamus petition constitutes a collateral attack on the judgment of conviction.  However, “the exclusive post-conviction remedy in final felony convictions in Texas courts is through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to [article] 11.07” of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  Ex parte Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d 260, 261 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.) (quoting Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)).  This Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a post-conviction felony habeas application.  Id.; In re Trevino, 79 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

            Therefore, we dismiss Wright’s petition for want of jurisdiction.  See Trevino, 79 S.W.3d at 796.

PER CURIAM

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 28, 2007

Do not publish

[OT06]


 

-align: justify; margin-left: 0.3in; margin-right: 0.3in">(b) Criminal Cases. The appeal may be dismissed if the appellant withdraws his notice of appeal at any time prior to the decision of the appellate court. The withdrawal shall be in writing signed by the appellant and his counsel and filed in duplicate with the clerk of the court of appeals in which the appeal is pending . . . . Notice of the dismissal shall be sent to the clerk of the trial court in which notice of appeal was filed.

Tex. R. App. P. 59(b).

      We have not issued a decision in this appeal. The motion is signed by Webber and signed and sworn to by his attorney. Thus, the motion meets the requirements of the rules and is granted.

      Webber's appeal is dismissed.


                                                                               PER CURIAM


Before   Justice Cummings, and

            Justice Vance

Dismissed on appellant's motion

Opinion delivered and filed April 24, 1996

Do not publish