In re Jerry D. Harrison Appeal from 29th District Court of Palo Pinto County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed July 31, 2014 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-14-00196-CR __________ IN RE JERRY D. HARRISON Original Mandamus Proceeding MEMORANDUM OPINION Appearing pro se, Relator, Jerry D. Harrison, a prison inmate, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. In his petition, Relator complains that the district judge of the 29th District Court of Palo Pinto County has not conducted a hearing on his writ of error coram nobis. 1 Relator contends that he is attempting to correct a defect in [his] initial habeas corpus proceeding by seeking a "writ of error coram nobis" from the trial court. Finding we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the petition. The substance of the relief relator seeks by mandamus is essentially a 1 The purpose of a writ of error coram nobis is to bring before the court rendering the judgment matters of fact which, if known at the time the judgment was rendered, would have prevented its rendition. Ex parte McKenzie, 29 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930). This common law writ is not recognized in this state. See Ex parte Massey, 249 S.W.2d 599, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952). request for postconviction habeas corpus relief because he is seeking an order from this court in support of his attempt to reopen his original postconviction habeas corpus proceeding. The habeas corpus procedure set out in Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive remedy for felony postconviction relief in state court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2013). Article 11.07 vests complete jurisdiction over postconviction relief from final felony convictions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. §§ 3, 5; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Hoang v. State, 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (only Court of Criminal Appeals has authority to grant postconviction relief from final felony convictions). There is no role for the courts of appeals in the procedure under Article 11.07. See CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). Furthermore, an intermediate appellate court has no authority to compel a trial court to rule on matters related to a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 18 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (orig. proceeding) (concluding intermediate appellate court could not order trial court to rule on habeas petition). Accordingly, we dismiss relator s petition for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM July 31, 2014 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J. 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.
