In re Lyle Richard BrummettAppeal from 216th Judicial District Court of Kerr County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00297-CR IN RE Lyle Richard BRUMMETT Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 22, 2013 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On May 7, 2103, Relator Lyle Richard Brummett filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining about the sentencing associated with his underlying felony conviction. In 1977, Relator Brummett was convicted of murder and was sentenced by confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections for the term of his natural life. Relator s conviction became final in 1977. Relator subsequently filed multiple writs of habeas corpus with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 1989 and 2008. Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to postconviction 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 (West Supp. 2011); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 3096, styled State of Texas v. Lyle Richard Brummett, pending in the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas, the Honorable N. Keith Williams presiding. 04-13-00297-CR 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 PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.