DISMISS; and Opinion Filed May 9, 2014.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00543-CV
IN RE DONALD GENE BLANTON, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 86th Judicial District Court
Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 23592-86
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers
Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers
Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus alleging that the trial court has failed to
hold a hearing on his claim of actual innocence. This Court has not been given general
supervisory control over district and county courts. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Kirby, 150 S.W.2d
123, 126 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1941, no writ); see also Guillory v. Davis, 527 S.W.2d 465,
466 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1975, no writ). The underlying nature of relator’s complaint is
that he has is being illegally confined following conviction of a felony. That sort of claim must
be raised by petition for writ of habeas corpus. While the courts of appeals have concurrent
mandamus jurisdiction with the Court of Criminal Appeals in some post-conviction proceedings,
Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (forensic DNA testing), only
the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in cases collaterally attacking a final judgment of
conviction of a felony. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2010); In re
Turk, No. 14-09-00129-CR, 2009 WL 396197, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 19,
2009, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re Bailey, No. 14-06-00841-CV, 2006 WL 2827249, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715,
717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). “Article 11.07 contains no role for
the courts of appeals; the only courts referred to are the convicting court and the Court of
Criminal Appeals.” In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 718. Accordingly, we DISMISS the petition for
writ of mandamus.
/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
JUSTICE
140543F.P05
–2–