In re Carl Long--Appeal from 13th District Court of Navarro County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-07-00084-CR

No. 10-07-00165-CV

No. 10-07-00166-CR

IN RE Carl Long

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM Opinion

Before this Court are three separate mandamus proceedings Carl Long has filed which relate to his conviction for manufacturing a controlled substance and his efforts to have that conviction set aside. In cause number 10-07-00084-CR (denominated as an appeal ), Long complains of the district clerk s refusal to file two pleadings, an application for writ of attachment and a bill of review/motion to amend motion for new trial, purportedly at the direction of Respondent, the Honorable John H. Jackson, Judge of the 13th District Court of Navarro County. In cause number 10-07-00165-CV, Long complains of Respondent s determination that he is a vexatious litigant under Chapter 11 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. And in cause number 10-07-00166-CR, Long seeks mandamus relief from this Court: (1) compelling Respondent to furnish him a copy of attorney Amanda Doan s findings regarding her investigation of new evidence which he alleges would entitle him to a new trial; (2) conducting oversight of Doan s investigation; and (3) granting any other relief this Court sees appropriate. We will dismiss all three proceedings.

Long s complaints in cause numbers 10-07-00084-CR and 10-07-00165-CV stem from an order signed by Respondent on February 20, 2007, in which Respondent made a sua sponte finding that Long is a vexatious litigant under Chapter 11 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Thus, Respondent instructed the Navarro County District Clerk to return a petition Long had tendered for filing. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 11.101(a) (Vernon 2002) (court may enter order prohibiting a person found to be a vexatious litigant from filing new litigation). The district clerk apparently acted pursuant to this order when she refused to accept the two pleadings at issue in cause number 10-07-00084-CR.

On the day after Long s petition in cause number 10-07-00084-CR was postmarked, this Court issued an opinion reviewing the history of Long s prosecution and post-conviction proceedings and explaining the proper procedures to be pursued in further post-conviction litigation. See In re Long, No. 10-06-235-CV, 2007 WL 765284 (Tex. App. Waco Mar. 14, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). In response, Respondent signed an order on March 19 which provides in pertinent part:

[T]he Court hereby vacates its previous order which directs the Clerk to reject further requests for relief and lawsuits filed or to be filed by Carl Long. The Clerk shall accept such filings in the future and such matters shall be docketed accordingly.

Carl Long is directed to resubmit such suits as he deems proper.

In light of this order, we dismiss Long s petitions in cause numbers 10-07-00084-CR and 10-07-00165-CV as moot. See In re Decker, 187 S.W.3d 838, 839 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); In re Keys, 109 S.W.3d 598, 599 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2003, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

Long s petition in cause number 10-07-00166-CR essentially asks this Court to become involved in a post-conviction habeas matter. Article 11.07, section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides, After conviction the procedure outlined in this Act shall be exclusive and any other proceeding shall be void and of no force and effect in discharging the prisoner. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, 5 (Vernon 2005). Thus, the Court of Criminal Appeals and lower courts have recognized that the exclusive post-conviction remedy in final felony convictions in Texas courts is through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to [article] 11.07. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Ex parte Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d 260, 261 (Tex. App. Waco 2006, no pet.). Accordingly, we dismiss cause number 10-07-00166-CR for want of jurisdiction. See Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d at 261.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

(Chief Justice Gray dissenting)

Petitions dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed July 18, 2007

Do not publish

[OT06]