Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00117-CR
IN RE Louis H. CONFER
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 5, 2014
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
On February 19, 2014, relator Louis H. Confer filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus.
Confer appears to seek an order directing the trial court to dismiss the charges against him and
nullify his conviction in the underlying criminal proceedings in Bandera, Texas municipal court.
However, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. By statute, this court
has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district or county court in the
court of appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a)-(b) (West 2004). We conclude the writ in this instance is not
necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 120980 and 121055, styled The State of Texas v. Louis H. Confer, pending
in the Municipal Court of Bandera County, Texas, the Honorable Frances Kaiser presiding.
04-14-00117-CR
Alternatively, Confer’s petition could be construed by this court as a petition for writ of
habeas corpus. To the extent that Confer seeks habeas relief in this original proceeding, this court,
as an intermediate court of appeals, is not authorized to grant the relief requested. Pursuant to
section 22.221(d) of the Texas Government Code, in civil matters, a court of appeals “may issue a
writ of habeas corpus when it appears that the restraint of liberty is by virtue of an order, process,
or commitment issued by a court or judge because of the violation of an order, judgment, or decree
previously made, rendered, or entered by the court or judge in a civil case.” TEX. GOV’T CODE
ANN. § 22.221(d) (West 2004). In criminal matters, however, an intermediate court of appeals has
no original habeas corpus jurisdiction. Chavez v. State, 132 S.W.3d 509, 510 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Watson v. State, 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, pet.
ref’d); Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.). In criminal
matters, the courts authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus are the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, district courts, and county courts. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05 (West
2005). Therefore, Confer’s petition, construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, is dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.
Additionally, Confer filed a “Notice of Appeal” by which he appears to request leave to
file a late notice of appeal of his underlying conviction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 30.00014(c)
(West Supp. 2013). This court likewise does not have jurisdiction over appeals from a judgment
or conviction in a municipal court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 30.00014(a) (West Supp. 2013);
Scheidt v. State, 101 S.W.3d 798, 799 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, no pet.). Accordingly, Confer’s
“Notice of Appeal” is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-