In Re Lionel D. Murphy--Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-10-00365-CV _________________ IN RE LIONEL D. MURPHY _____________________________________________________________ __ ___ __ Original Proceeding _______________________________________________________________ _____ _ MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 6, 2010, relator Lionel D. Murphy filed a writ of mandamus,1 in which he complains of the trial court s denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Murphy contends that he was improperly convicted of two offenses in a single cause number, and that the trial court improperly corrected the judgment by entering a judgment nunc pro tunc. The original jurisdiction granted to this Court by the Texas Constitution is under such restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by law. TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6. Our writ power includes writs of mandamus against district and county court judges within our district, writs of habeas corpus in civil cases, and other writs necessary to 1 Murphy filed a notice of appeal; however, given the absence of a record and the nature of the relief Murphy requests, we have construed Murphy s brief as a petition for writ of mandamus. 1 enforce the jurisdiction of the court. TEX. GOV T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a),(b) (Vernon 2004). The writ Murphy requests is not necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In addition, the writ of coram nobis is not recognized in Texas. See Ex parte McCune, 156 Tex. Crim. 213, 246 S.W.2d 171, 172 (1952). Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive means to challenge a final conviction, and jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas corpus relief on a final felony conviction rests exclusively with the Court of Criminal Appeals. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3 (Vernon Supp. 2009). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. WRIT DENIED. PER CURIAM Opinion Delivered September 9, 2010 Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 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.
