Jorge Venustiano Porras v. The State of TexasAppeal from 185th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued December 3, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00852-CR JORGE VENUSTIANO PORRAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 185th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 818904 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Jorge Venustiano Porras, attempts to appeal from the trial court s order denying appellant s motion for relief from judgment to vacate judgment. We dismiss the appeal. In 1999, appellant pleaded guilty to capital murder. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at life in prison. On August 23, 2013, appellant filed the present motion, asserting that the judgment and sentence were void and requesting that the trial court vacate defendant s judgment and sentence. The trial court denied appellant s motion and appellant filed a notice of appeal. Appellant is confined in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice as the result of a final felony conviction and seeks relief from that confinement. The habeas corpus procedure set out in article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive remedy for felony post-conviction relief in state court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2013); see also Bd. of Pardons & Paroles v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; see also Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 910 S.W.2d at 483. There is no role for the courts of appeals in the procedure under article 11.07. Howell v. State, No. 07-11-00103-CR, 2011 WL 1878643, at *1 (Tex. App. Amarillo May 17, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citations omitted). 2 After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction, appellant did not respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale. Do not publish.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.
