Opinion issued April 7, 2011.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-11-00120-CR
———————————
IN RE Tracey W. Murphy, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Tracey W. Murphy has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that the trial court has not ruled on the following post-conviction motions: (1) “motion to produce confession,” (2) “motion for the appointment of an investigator,” (3) “amended motion for private investigator,” and (4) “motion for designation of record for new trial on newly discovered evidence.” We note that, on September 15, 2000, this Court affirmed relator’s conviction.[1] See Murphy v. State, No. 01-98-00786-CR, 2000 WL 1299489, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 14, 2000, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Our mandate issued on May 9, 2001.
Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5 (a), (d) (requiring service of all documents presented to this Court). Even had relator filed a petition that complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, relator would not be entitled to mandamus relief in this Court. Relator’s affidavit in support of his petition states that the motions about which he complains were filed for the purpose of obtaining relief from his final felony conviction. The exclusive remedy from final felony convictions is a writ of habeas corpus. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 5 (Vernon 2005). Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings. See Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717-18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Thus, this Court would be without authority to grant the relief relator seeks. See Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene, 910 S.W.2d at 483; In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 717-18; In re Robertson, No. 01-09-00966-CR, 2009 WL 5174157, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 28, 2009, orig. proceeding).
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Massengale.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[1] Relator was convicted of robbery in trial court cause number 778022 in the 262nd District Court of Harris County. His punishment was assessed at 25 years’ confinement. Although relator’s petition names the Honorable Mike Anderson as respondent in this mandamus proceeding, we take judicial notice that Judge Anderson no longer presides over the 262nd District Court; the Honorable Denise Bradley now presides over that court.