MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-12-00023-CR
IN RE Jose Roberto MEDINA
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 25, 2012
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
On January 12, 2012, relator Jose Roberto Medina filed a petition for writ of mandamus,
complaining the Bexar County District Clerk has failed to provide him with copies of records he
claims he requested. In 2010, relator entered a plea bargain agreement and was sentenced to
fifteen years’ confinement for burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit a felony with
force. On February 9, 2011, this court dismissed the appeal in Cause No. 04-10-00896-CR for
lack of jurisdiction because we concluded relator had no right of appeal. Therefore, relator’s
felony conviction became final. For the following reasons, we dismiss the petition for lack of
jurisdiction.
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-1086, styled State of Texas v. Jose Roberto Medina, in the 226th
Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sid Harle presiding.
04-12-00023-CR
First, 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 against the Bexar County District Clerk is not necessary to enforce our
jurisdiction.
Furthermore, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters
related to post-conviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth
Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 1991); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2011); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for
Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding that “Article 11.07 provides
the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction.”). Because the relief sought in
relator’s petition relates to post-conviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction, we
are without jurisdiction to consider his petition for writ of mandamus.
Accordingly, relator’s petition is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-