Opinion issued July 18, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00424-CR
———————————
IN RE KELLY R. LEWIS, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Kelly R. Lewis filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining
that his former attorney is refusing to provide him with his case file, and that
District Clerk Chris Daniels is refusing to provide him with a copy of the trial
transcripts and other materials related to his 2008 conviction on file with the
District Clerk’s office. Relator is asking this Court to compel his former attorney
and the District Clerk to provide him with the requested materials.
This Court has no jurisdiction to grant Relator’s requested relief. By statute,
we only have 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) (emphasis added). The issuance of a writ compelling Relator’s
former attorney and the District Clerk to provide Relator with the requested
materials is not necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction.
Although Relator argues that these materials are “necessary for a fair and
successful appeal,” this Court’s records indicate that Relator appealed his
conviction in 2008 and lost. Relator was convicted of aggravated robbery on
November 18, 2008, and the jury assessed his punishment at ninety-nine years’
confinement. Relator timely appealed and on December 10, 2009, his conviction
was affirmed by a panel of this Court consisting of Justices Keyes, Alcala, and
Hanks (01-08-00940-CR).1 Relator did not file a motion for rehearing with this
Court or seek review of the Court’s opinion by the Court of Criminal Appeals. As
1
See Lewis v. State, No. 01-08-00940-CR, 2009 WL 4724675 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 10, 2009, no pet.) (No. 01-08-00940-CR) (mem. op., not
designated for publication).
2
a result, the mandate in 01-08-00940-CR issued on June 18, 2010. Relator’s
conviction is final. We no longer have jurisdiction over Relator’s appeal.
At this juncture, Relator’s only option for challenging his 2008 felony
conviction is a post-conviction habeas application pursuant to Code of Criminal
Procedure article 11.07. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp.
2012) (governing post-conviction writs of habeas corpus challenging felony
convictions in non-death penalty cases). This Court does not have jurisdiction
over article 11.07 writs of habeas corpus. See Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex.,
Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex Parte
Alexander, 685 S.W.2d 57, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)); see also TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3 (post-conviction applications for writs of habeas corpus,
for felony cases in which death penalty was not assessed, must be filed in court of
original conviction and made returnable to court of criminal appeals).
For these reasons, we conclude that the requested writ is not necessary to
enforce our appellate jurisdiction in this instance. Accordingly, Relator’s petition
for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Massengale.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3