Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-20-00053-CR
IN RE Deagobeto OSEGUERA-GARCIA
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 5, 2020
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
On June 4, 2019, the trial court signed an “Order Designating Issues,” pursuant to Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.07, section 3(d). See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07,
§ 3(d) (“If the convicting court decides that there are controverted, previously unresolved facts
which are material to the legality of the applicant’s confinement, it shall enter an order within 20
days of the expiration of the time allowed for the state to reply, designating the issues of fact to be
resolved.”). Also on June 4, 2019, the trial court ordered attorneys Larry Bloomquist and
Raymond Deleon to file affidavits on or before June 28, 2019, addressing the issues of fact to be
resolved. See id. (“To resolve those issues the court may order affidavits . . . .”). Mr. Bloomquist
and Mr. Deleon were also ordered to provide copies of their affidavit to relator and the Bexar
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011-CR-1453-W1, styled Ex Parte Deagobeto Oseguera-Garcia, pending
in the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Velia J. Meza presiding.
04-20-00053-CR
County Conviction Integrity Unit. On January 27, 2020, relator filed his petition for writ of
mandamus asking this court to direct the trial court to order the attorneys to file their affidavits.
After relator filed his petition, this court contacted the Bexar County Conviction Integrity Unit to
ascertain whether it had received copies of the affidavits. We were informed no affidavits had
been filed.
Although it appears Mr. Bloomquist and Mr. Deleon may be in violation of a trial court
order, we do not have jurisdiction to consider relator’s complaint. The substance of the relief
sought by relator in his petition is habeas corpus relief following a final felony conviction. Article
11.07 provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction. Bd. of Pardons &
Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App.
1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas corpus relief
on a final felony conviction rests exclusively with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Keene,
910 S.W.2d at 483; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(a). 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. Therefore, we must dismiss relator’s
petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish
-2-