Charles Ray Edwards v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 209th District Court of Harris County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued October 5, 2011 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ____________ NO. 01-09-00957-CR ____________ CHARLES RAY EDWARDS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 209th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 328965 MEMORANDUM OPINION In 1981, appellant Charles Ray Edwards was convicted of aggravated robbery, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. See Charles Ray Edwards v. State, No. 01-81-0497-CR (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] July 1, 1982, no pet.) (not designated for publication). In 2008, on the trial of a subsequent offense, the 1981 conviction was used to enhance appellant s punishment. On October 14, 2009, appellant, proceeding pro se, filed a second notice of appeal challenging the 1981 conviction. This court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second appeal from appellant s final conviction. The exclusive post-conviction remedy in final felony convictions in Texas courts is through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.07. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5 (West Supp. 2010) (providing that [a]fter 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 ); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In addition, to the degree appellant asserts in his notice of appeal that he is seeking habeas relief, we lack jurisdiction to address his issues. Jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas corpus relief in felony cases rests exclusively with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3; Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 2 District, 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Accordingly, because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we dismiss. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 42.3(a), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Brown. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 3
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.
