In re Elmo Fortenberry Appeal from 385th District Court of Midland County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Opinion filed January 22, 2021 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ No. 11-21-00009-CR ___________ IN RE ELMO FORTENBERRY Original Proceeding MEMORANDUM OPINION Elmo Fortenberry, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of error. In the attached writ of error, Fortenberry complains that unethical conduct by the prosecutor during proceedings related to Fortenberry’s application for writ of habeas corpus requires that the application be reviewed “in a different light.” Fortenberry also complains about error in the underlying trial. Fortenberry requests that we reverse the criminal conviction. It appears that the substance of the relief sought by Fortenberry is postconviction relief from a final felony conviction—relief for which the habeas corpus procedure set out in Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive remedy. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015). Article 11.07 vests complete jurisdiction for such relief in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. art. 11.07, §§ 3, 5; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding); Hoang v. State, 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). We dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM January 22, 2021 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, 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.