DISMISS; and Opinion Filed June 3, 2019.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00596-CV
IN RE REGINALD ARLEIGH NOBLE, Relator
Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-0050025
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Reichek
Opinion by Justice Brown
Before the Court is relator Reginald Arleigh Noble’s May 21, 2019 petition for writ of
mandamus. Relator was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to life in
prison. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Noble v. State, No. 08-01-00035-CR, 2002
WL 221886 (Tex. App.—El Paso Feb. 4, 2002, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). In this
original proceeding, relator complains that the trial court denied his request for article 11.01 and
article 11.07 writ of habeas corpus relief and asks this Court to grant him a new trial.
This proceeding is a collateral attack on a final conviction and, therefore, falls within the
scope of a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07. “It is well established that only the Court
of Criminal Appeals possesses the authority to grant relief in a post-conviction habeas corpus
proceeding where there is a final felony conviction.” Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth
Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117–18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (quoting Ex parte Alexander, 685 S.W.2d
57, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) and citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07 § 5); Ater v. Eighth
Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). “Article 11.07
contains no role for the courts of appeals; the only courts referred to are the convicting court and
the Court of Criminal Appeals.” In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
/Ada Brown/
ADA BROWN
JUSTICE
190596F.P05
–2–