Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 9, 2014
S
Court of Appeals
In The
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00390-CV
No. 05-14-00391-CV
IN RE SENRICK WILKERSON, Relator
Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F10-01183-J, F10-01184-J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices FitzGerald, Francis, and Lewis
Opinion by Justice Francis
Relator files a motion seeking summary judgment. He complains of false imprisonment
based on alleged inaccuracies in his Dallas county arrest records and purported procedural errors
with relation to his arrests and convictions. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure do not
permit this Court to grant summary judgment in this case. Moreover, this Court may not address
complaints of the type relator raises, regardless of the form in which they are couched. Ater v.
Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (“What the court of
appeals tried to do was treat the original mandamus petition as a writ of habeas corpus. We are
the only court with jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings.”). 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.
The nature of relator’s complaint is that he has is being illegally confined due to the
defects he alleges. This Court does not have jurisdiction over any matters related to such
complaints; they must be raised with the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the Court
DISMISSES the petition.
/Molly Francis/
140390F.P05 MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
–2–