In re Edward Roy Newsome Appeal from 179th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Opinion filed April 19, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00291-CR IN RE EDWARD ROY NEWSOME, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 179th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 441673 MEMORANDUM OPINION On April 8, 2016, relator Edward Roy Newsome filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Kristin M. Guiney, presiding judge of the 179th District Court of Harris County, to vacate an alleged order that disqualified relator’s counsel. The alleged disqualification order is not part of the record. This court affirmed relator’s conviction for the felony of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in 1988 in the trial court below, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused his petition for discretionary review. See Newsome v. State, No. C14–87–00048–CR, 1988 WL 26430 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). Therefore, relator’s conviction is final. Because relator’s petition involves a final post-conviction felony proceeding, it is governed by Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp.2014); see also id. at art. 11.07 § 5 (stating 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.”). Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings. Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). We therefore dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Jamison. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 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.