Opinion issued December 5, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00943-CR
———————————
IN RE JOSE PAULINO CHAVEZ, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 31, 2013, the relator, Jose Paulino Chavez, filed a petition for
writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to rule on relator’s post-
conviction “motion requesting district court to correct void judgment.”1 We deny
the petition for writ of mandamus because it is procedurally defective. 2
Further, even if relator’s petition complied with the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure, we have no authority to order a district court judge to rule on
a motion to void a sentence in a felony case in which the judgment is final. See In
re Palacios, No. 01-10-00592-CR, 2010 WL 3063125, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] Aug. 4, 2010, orig. proceeding); see also In re Ramirez, No. 08-12-
00352-CR, 2012 WL 6629828, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Dec. 19, 2012, orig.
proceeding). Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over
matters related to post-conviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction.
See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2013); Ater v. Eighth
Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding).
Relator was convicted in trial court cause number 874365 of the offense of
aggravated robbery and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
Relator appealed his conviction. On December 18, 2008, we issued an opinion
1
The underlying case is State v. Jose Paulino Chavez, No. 874365, in the 338th
District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Brock Thomas presiding.
2
See TEX. R. APP. 9.5 (requiring that document filed with Court must be served on
all parties and that certificate of service contain date, manner of service, name and
address of each person served, and, if person served is party’s attorney, the name
of party represented by that attorney); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (requiring that
petition include appendix containing certified or sworn copy of any document
showing matter complained of); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7 (requiring relator to file
record with the petition containing certified or sworn copy of every document that
is material to relator’s claim).
2
affirming the trial court’s judgment. See Chavez v. State, No. 01-07-00563-CR,
2008 WL 5263404 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 18, 2008, no pet.). Our
mandate issued on September 3, 2009. The trial court’s judgment of conviction is
final and, therefore, we lack jurisdiction to compel the trial court to rule on
relator’s post-conviction “motion requesting district court to correct void
judgment.”
Based on the foregoing, relator’s petition is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3